Preview Dragon Age sightings at 1UP

[Vault Dweller]

@ VD : Boromirs death had a lot of meaning to it, the whole him struggling against the rings influence, chasing the hobbits, then throwing it off and defending them against the orcs. Its was meaningful and shit.

Would his death be any less meaningful if he simply died in a random battle defending his friends or protecting his own ass?

Gandalfs return as the white wizard was also meaningful. But it was his death that was the most meaningful aspect, in fact it was the freaking climax of the first book. It had huge emotional investment. Their guide and mentor, lost, gone! Shock, horror, what do we do now, despair! Its actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absolutely not a random death. Not at all.

Ok, the master's gone, shock, horror, despair. Again, would you not feel it had he died fighting Saruman or defending Helm's Deep? Would his death be any less heroic and totally awesome? No. Would it affect the story in any way? No. What if he never died? Still no. There you go.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Yes, his death would have been less meaningful. His entire purpose as a character was to illustrate the corrupting effects of the ring, and to show the struggle of a mans spirit against its call, blah blah blah.

Each of those deaths for Gandalf you mentioned could have been equally as affecting, because they are all pretty epic. Dying while fighting balrog or dying while fighting Saruman, same thing. He would have had to come up with a replacement dramatic climax for the end of the first book though.

Dying because of a random goblin in his path, who hit him with a lucky throw of a rock? The grey wizard doesnt die in some epic battle, but from a fluke of chance? Not so epic. Not so dramatic.

The timing also made a difference. It would have made far less of an impact to the reader if he'd died at the beginning of the journey. Again, a skilled author builds up emotional attachment to a character, so the climatic moments of his death have more of an impact. Pacing is very important.

 

[galsiah]

...but it was definately not the same as if he'd just died because he he sat on a snake while sitting by the campfire.

Why do you persist with this crap? Who has suggested random campfire deaths?
Deaths in combat are not random either. A powerful character doesn't simply get hit by a rock and die with most game systems - particulary when the player is trying his best to keep the character alive.
Stop using stupid examples and the word "random", since it simply doesn't apply. If you are a programmer, you should know this. If you aren't, do stop lying.

Absolutely not a random death. Not at all.

Again - no-one is suggesting "random" death. Your point is not relevant.

I am also quite aware of how scripting works, and I am a professional programmer... Every time the story branches, you double the number of options you must script for. If you offer more than one branch, you increase this multiplier. The number of options you must cater for grows at an exponential rate.

Only for branches which are completely self-contained with no overlap. I.e. pretty much never true in any RPG: there are many options which are independent of other choices, so total number of options does not double.

I'm talking about options where you impact the future path of the storyline. Its difficult enough to create a game with 8 different endings. But 16? 32? 64? 128? etc etc.

For a start, with your thesis, 8 = 2^3, so three very important character deaths could be catered for. That's more than none by my count.
Second, there don't have to be complete splits in the plot, or totally independent separate endings for each possible death combination. Viewing things as simply 2^n complexity is simply stupid. Many events can have independent consequences - that doesn't need to diminish the importance of each unless you have a simple success/failure Save-The-World resolution to the game with no importance placed on other circumstances.

His entire purpose as a character was to illustrate the corrupting effects of the ring, and to show the struggle of a mans spirit against its call, blah blah blah.

So what? We're not talking about LOTR here. It doesn't have to be possible to make that particular story into a great branching game. It only has to be possible to construct a good branching story for a game from the ground up.
If you think this is impossible, simply because you can't think of a clear way to adapt LOTR (irrelevant in any case), you're being quite stupid.

Dying because of a random goblin in his path, who hit him with a lucky throw of a rock?

Stupid example. Do stop it.

The timing also made a difference. It would have made far less of an impact to the reader if he'd died at the beginning of the journey. Again, a skilled author builds up emotional attachment to a character, so the climatic moments of his death have more of an impact. Pacing is very important.

Stop with the idiotic assumption that the time of death is random and the designer has zero control over when it happens. This is not true. Certainly pacing is important, but if you think that can't be achieved in a game with death, you're falling into the trap of stupidity again.

In any case, just stop with all the book/game writing comparisions. A game is not a book, and should be treated as something in its own right.

For your future reference, here's a quick checklist for coming up with a good argument against something:
(1) Consider how the thing could be done in the most effective way possible.
(2) Argue that even this is not sufficient.

What you're doing at present is this:
(1) Come up with some lame, half-baked method of doing something.
(2) Point out that it sucks.
Do stop it, since that gets us nowhere.

 

[sheek]

Looks like Ninja just wants somebody to 'tell me a story' and simultaneously 'act it out' on a computer screen. Are you sure you're even interested in CRPGs?

 

[Dgaider]

You say there's a difference in the use of cut-scenes, but aren't explaining what that difference is.

True, but I just haven't the energy to tilt at windmills right now -- while I can enjoy getting into that sort of argument from time to time on the Codex, it's a big investment of time and energy and usually for questionable purpose. And, besides, getting into it properly would require me to bring up details of the project I just can't talk about yet. So if I seem like a tease, I apologize... at this point all I'm willing to say is that suggesting that DA is essentially one long cut-scene is simply going too far.

However, the cutscene question can be easily modified to ask whether you can ditch the NPCs permanently, a la BG or Arcanum as opposed to KoTOR or NWN2.

All but the two, yes (and, in fact, that may soon be reduced to one). And if that's the same as "no" to you, then so be it. There are still different paths for the story to take, so it's not as if they're required for a particular cut-scene down the line -- they're just important to the story and the fact that they're with you simply makes sense. But whatever.

But really, it was just completely unnecessary to get all rabid on the Bioware guy. It was just being an ass for the sake of it.

Eh? Nobody went rabid on me. Mind you, I compare such things to the time or two that Roshan has done so. Regardless, I'm a big boy. I can take it, or I can leave.

 

[Ladonna]

Well, feel free to argue the toss whenever you like David.

Perhaps you could tell us, if you had no constraints whatsoever, what kind of RPG would be a labour of love from your standpoint and what features would really float your boat when playing one. Since you don't officially represent Bioware while your here..... :wink:

Ninja: You make a fair argument for a storyboard, but not a CRPG. As others have said above, it is not a movie in which you can pick one of three responses, and then move onto the next prefab 'cutscene' that makes an RPG. Having the story as a backdrop, rather than the dictatorial you-will-do-this-now! is what many are arguing for. A move forward in CRPG mechanics, rather than a regression to linearity and lack of gameplay options, hidden by a lovely facade and sounds.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, his death would have been less meaningful. His entire purpose as a character was to illustrate the corrupting effects of the ring, and to show the struggle of a mans spirit against its call, blah blah blah.

So? The Realms of Arkania series had stats like avarice, superstition, acrophobia, claustrophobia, necrophobia, curiosity, etc. These traits added a lot of personality to characters and affected certain situations and encounters. The "ring effect" could easily be handled in a similar manner.

Each of those deaths for Gandalf you mentioned could have been equally as affecting, because they are all pretty epic.

Death doesn't have to be "epic" to have a strong affect on the audience.

Dying because of a random goblin in his path, who hit him with a lucky throw of a rock?

As Galsiah said, your examples are kinda silly as a mid-level character will NOT die because of a random goblin, but even if that's the case, such a scenario can too have a very powerful effect because there is something fatalistic and very sad when a character who survived against impossible odds is killed by a weak creature due to dumb luck or circumstances. In some card games, an ace could only be beaten by the lowest card.

The grey wizard doesnt die in some epic battle, but from a fluke of chance? Not so epic. Not so dramatic.

Read a book. I've heard that Salvatore is a great author.

Again, a skilled author builds up emotional attachment to a character, so the climatic moments of his death have more of an impact. Pacing is very important.

Do you understand the concept of RPG?

 

[Elhoim]

200th post!

Good to see you here, David.

 

[Volourn]

"A story doesn't have to rely on characters [being alive]. Take the LotR, for example. Boromir died. Did the story stop? No. "

Comparing a book/movie to a agem in this insatnce is retarded, and rather uneeded. By defintion, they are 100% linear. Why not just discuss actual games. Hell, just use BIO's BG games which had joinable npcs that added a lot to the game yet ALL were killeable.

The excuse that joinable npcs shouldn't be killable until a certain scripted point or else the story or cutscene whatever will be ruined is absolute bullshit.

But, your LOTR argument is just plain fuckin' lame. Much like your argument that G3 combat isn't a click fest.
R00fles!

 

[Vault Dweller]

"A story doesn't have to rely on characters [being alive]. Take the LotR, for example. Boromir died. Did the story stop? No. "

Comparing a book/movie to a agem in this insatnce is retarded, and rather uneeded. By defintion, they are 100% linear.

We were discussing the character-related story aspects of games. Instead of saying "gaems r not books lol", I pointed out that pretty much anything related to the characters could be easily changed without ruining the story.

Why not just discuss actual games. Hell, just use BIO's BG games which had joinable npcs that added a lot to the game yet ALL were killeable.

They added a lot to the game, but not to the story. Unlike FF, BG didn't rely on your companion to tell the story. Thus, your example is useless.

The excuse that joinable npcs shouldn't be killable until a certain scripted point or else the story or cutscene whatever will be ruined is absolute bullshit.

Finally, we agree on something.

 

[galsiah]

...I just can't talk about yet...

Fair enough.

...they're just important to the story and the fact that they're with you simply makes sense...

Personally that doesn't bother me.
However, having such a character hacked to "death", then simply getting up a few moments later without ill effects does bother me - and certainly doesn't "simply make sense". (in most circumstances)

My ideal would be to have any character death possible (if rarely likely), and have the game support death as an interesting plot development. Barring that, I'd just like to have the invincibility of such characters to have some credibility. Having no real downside to near-death gives the player no good reason to avoid it. That means it'll likely be happening often - which ruins the coherence of the game world for me.

I'd rather see some fairly harsh (but interesting) consequences for near-death. Harsh to give the player an incentive not to let it happen often (to maintain credibility - narrow avoidance of death is perfectly credible, so long as it's rare); interesting to keep the player rewarded with entertainment, regardless of his party's inconvenience (to discourage save/load cycles).
I'll be happy with that - though it's not my ideal.

I'd just hope that some consideration is given to the fact that RPGs are about more than the immediacy of "fun". Having (near)death result in significant, interesting setbacks might not have the player giggling with glee at the time, but it could make for a more entertaining overall package.

 

[Volourn]

"They added a lot to the game, but not to the story. Unlike FF, BG didn't rely on your companion to tell the story. Thus, your example is useless."

False. While the BG npcs weren't REQUIRED for the story; they surely added to the story. Espicially BG2. There's a big difference between the two. The same can be said about PST as well. The characters were important tot he story, and added to it; but were NOT required either.


"Finally, we agree on something."

Fuck you. Even thinking I agree with someone who actually believes that G3 combat is not a click fest pisses me off.

R00fles!

 

[Vault Dweller]

False. While the BG npcs weren't REQUIRED for the story; they surely added to the story.

Like what?

Fuck you. Even thinking I agree with someone who actually believes that G3 combat is not a click fest pisses me off.

I completely agree!

 

[Ladonna]

Galsiah: I vote largely for what you have said in regards to 'death' and other naughty things happening to characters that 'die'. However, this should be the case if their is an easy way of using characters successfully, decent UI, with either an advanced AI, or good tactical view for battles (Not that used by NWN2 which made things incredibly difficult to make any combat decisions easily).

Volourn: No. The discussion is about what is REQUIRED for the story ie; Forced NPC's.

 

[Volourn]

"I completely agree!"

R00fles!

Ladonna: The point is that the whole idea of required joinables for the story is lame and is full of crap. Period.

Unless yoru goal is to write a book or make a FF type RPG 9and,e evn then); there should be no required joinables.

End of discussion.

 

[Sir_Brennus]

Looks like Ninja just wants somebody to 'tell me a story' and simultaneously 'act it out' on a computer screen. Are you sure you're even interested in CRPGs?

Maybe I'm repeating myselft, but...

wasn't the whole White Wolf "Vampire the Masquerade" and "Werewolf the Apocalypse" pen&paper universe part of what the designers called "a STORYTELLING game"? And that is the one extreme while the "Lone Wolf" books obiviously are the other one. But still - p&p with a good dm (a had my share) is playing a part in someone ELSES story, because, because the dm creates the setting and the story "bangs" (thanks HumanShield).

In this aspect BG1 ruled actually over the Kotors and NWN1/2, because the story forced on you was the "chusen one", while the NPC were optional. I'm not so sure about BG2 - did anyone ever deny Imoen her rentry into the party? Was that even possible???

@VD
I tend to agree with you (as I seldom do), but let me ask 2 questions:
1. What about the design choice Nihilistic did with VtM-Redemption? NPCs could die a untimly death, but in cut scenes their graves were shown when they talked...
2. What about games like "Elixir", where the whole point of the story is to protect a little girl right at the beginning of the game and that is over whenever the PC and the girl dies?

 

[Volourn]

"I'm not so sure about BG2 - did anyone ever deny Imoen her rentry into the party? Was that even possible???"

Yes. You could leave her there (I think), send her to the Copper Coronet or slaughter her.


And, no, you weren't the 'Chosen One' in the Bgs eries outside of being the main protaganist that is so obviously the story was focued on you.

 

[Sir_Brennus]

"I'm not so sure about BG2 - did anyone ever deny Imoen her rentry into the party? Was that even possible???"

Yes. You could leave her there (I think), send her to the Copper Coronet or slaughter her.


And, no, you weren't the 'Chosen One' in the Bgs eries outside of being the main protaganist that is so obviously the story was focued on you.

My habit to play Paladins in every game where it is remotely possible seems to influence my own set of moral abilities... as it limits my imagination.

"... slaughter her"? - I'm going to vomit...

 

[Vault Dweller]

I tend to agree with you (as I seldom do), but let me ask 2 questions:
1. What about the design choice Nihilistic did with VtM-Redemption? NPCs could die a untimly death, but in cut scenes their graves were shown when they talked...

I didn't like it, it was kinda lame. Dead is dead. If you are dead, you don't get to participate in cutscenes and provide your expert opinion from beyond the grave.

2. What about games like "Elixir", where the whole point of the story is to protect a little girl right at the beginning of the game and that is over whenever the PC and the girl dies?

Sounds lovely and reasonable.

 

[sabishii]

No, if characters who got knocked down in the middle of combat get back up after its just to short circuit the damn stupid "crap one of my guys died time to reload" syndrome. Honestly, the number of people who would just let a character in their party die because of a bad attack roll and be permanently dead in these games is so small a percentage of gamers as to be completely inconsequential. And no author of any story ever kills a main character off unless it has some sort of point for the storyline.

Imagine if, in the middle of The lord of the rings, Gandalf choked on a turnip while eating supper and died. That would have made that story SO much better. Dramatic impact and pacing +100!!!

I'm sorry, I don't remember when Gandalf was fatally injured in battle, but then suddenly was miraculously revived just so he could save the party from the Balrog. We perceive that he survives until that moment because he is smart and skilled enough to not get himself killed, not because some god up there decided to make him immortal. There is still a perceived risk that any of the characters can die at any moment. While in truth the author may be saving the character for a "dramatic" death, the reader is not supposed to think that. Every time a character does anything perilous, the reader still is going to be worried about his fate, even if his death wasn't planned for that moment.

Similarly, by taking away the risk that a character can die in a game, while you may be building up for a dramatic moment, you are making the character seem more and more artificial rather than a well defined person. You are also making the story more and more artificial because you are basically taking advantage of cop-outs. Cop-outs are in books and TV shows and movies, too. When a certain character should have died, but then the author saves him from death in a very artificial and non-realistic way, the reader immediately notices the cop-out. Gandalf CAN die normally, but he is perceived to survive through skill and intelligence, not through cop-outs. But if you don't allow characters to die normally in a game, then you ARE copping out.

 

[Dgaider]

I'd rather see some fairly harsh (but interesting) consequences for near-death. Harsh to give the player an incentive not to let it happen often (to maintain credibility - narrow avoidance of death is perfectly credible, so long as it's rare); interesting to keep the player rewarded with entertainment, regardless of his party's inconvenience (to discourage save/load cycles).
I'll be happy with that - though it's not my ideal.

Has that not already come up, here? Dragon Age isn't using the KotOR system of characters popping up after combat, no harm done. When party members go down in combat, persistent injury states are applied which require healing resources and rest at the camp before the injury can be removed -- and until then apply hefty negatives (varying depending on the type of injury) with the severity based on the difficulty level.

 

[galsiah]

Sure that covers harsh - presuming that there's a big incentive not to just wait around for everyone to get healed again. If time (and a little gold...) is the only downside, there ought to be some time pressure to get on with things.

I'm not sure it covers "interesting" though (not that I'm saying I have a great solution for that). It'd be nice if there were usually significant player aims that couldn't be satisfied without any particular character. If the temporary loss of a character makes a real difference in terms of what can be achieved (rather than just meaning a small change in tactics) there would be an incentive to take them even when significantly injured.
That would at least make the decision a little more interesting.

Of course that's only going to be interesting if travelling / fighting with an injuried character creates really different dynamics - e.g. in combat. If the injured guy is merely the same, yet less effective, that's pretty dull. If the injuries create vulnerabilities which require the entire party to change tactics (e.g. to protect the injured character), that might be more interesting.

Clearly all this would require there to be some non-combat reason to take each particular character on a quest. That way combat vulnerability can help to mix things up, but the character is still required, since he's the only one that can achieve non-combat-task-X reasonably effectively.

No-one is going to want this sort of thing going on all the time, but a near-death injury ought to give the player more to think about than a simple "Damn - we're at 90% combat efficiency - lets wait a couple of weeks and lose a little gold...".

 

[Elhoim]

I'd rather see some fairly harsh (but interesting) consequences for near-death. Harsh to give the player an incentive not to let it happen often (to maintain credibility - narrow avoidance of death is perfectly credible, so long as it's rare); interesting to keep the player rewarded with entertainment, regardless of his party's inconvenience (to discourage save/load cycles).
I'll be happy with that - though it's not my ideal.

Has that not already come up, here? Dragon Age isn't using the KotOR system of characters popping up after combat, no harm done. When party members go down in combat, persistent injury states are applied which require healing resources and rest at the camp before the injury can be removed -- and until then apply hefty negatives (varying depending on the type of injury) with the severity based on the difficulty level.

That´s very nice David. It would be great if you guys make that penalty a variable that you can change via option menu, I mean, not hardcoded. Because I´m sure that many people here would consider your default a little soft (I guess )

BTW, I think I read somewhere that you liked LARPing. I´m a LARPer in spirit, and I usually like little option that let you LARP a little, like for example, resting at inns, chatting with the barkeeper, fatigue (after not sleeping for X hours). Will I see this stuff in DA? Thanks!

 

[Dgaider]

No-one is going to want this sort of thing going on all the time, but a near-death injury ought to give the player more to think about than a simple "Damn - we're at 90% combat efficiency - lets wait a couple of weeks and lose a little gold...".

As opposed to the inconvenience posed by casting Raise Dead or by traveling to the nearest temple, as we did in BG? Unless what you're proposing is that whenever a party member goes down they're always permanently dead, any "death" system boils down to how plausible the recovery from it is to the player. I would rather have consequences that require recovery and yet which are acceptable enough that they don't encourage reload.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

BTW, I think I read somewhere that you liked LARPing. I´m a LARPer in spirit, and I usually like little option that let you LARP a little, like for example, resting at inns, chatting with the barkeeper, fatigue (after not sleeping for X hours). Will I see this stuff in DA? Thanks!

It was a Vampire LARP, as I recall. Someone liked the Vampire LARP, anyway, and I recall the merciless taunting that ensued.