Review VD holds forth on Dragon Age Quest Design

[Joe Krow]

All this talk of "percentages of the audience" reminds me of EA. You guys are working on a couple of games as a hobby. Enough with the delusions of grandeur. Your audience wants time limits, challenge, companions that stay dead, and to have to play the game multiple times to see everything. When you talk about market percentages you should realize that the portion of the market that has any interest in your games is not in the majority. It's called a niche. You can please the niche and have a moderate success or try to please the majority and get your asses handed to you by professional game designers. Your choice.

PS: Any post referencing "crossover potential" will only confirm that you're delusional.

 

[JarlFrank]

I absolutely loathe time limits, generally, which is why I played Fallout 1 only fairly recently when I got over the "OMG TIEM LIMITZ" and gave it a chance. Turned out the time limit is actually really generous. But still, it annoyed me mostly because it was the main quest. Sidequests don't bother me that much, for example one FO2 quest where you have to go to some shack or something in the first town (forgot the details). Was only a very minor sidequest, ignored it, wanted to do it after a while and then the guy told me it was too late. I was "oh well doesn't matter, back to the main quest" and got on with the game. Yes, it was a very minor quest, but even if it had been a more significant sidequest I wouldn't have been annoyed. Why? Because it's just an optional sidequest and I don't mind failing those. But a time limit on the main quest that says "If you don't succeed in 150 days it's game over!" feels a lot more uncomfortable. I wouldn't even mind it if it just led to a worse outcome, but game over... that's the part I didn't like about FO's time limit.

So, generally: I'm okay with time limits as long as they're not the type of "Succeed in 100 days or GAME OVER" time limit. Can't stand those.

 

[Zomg]

I hope I've planted the criticism seed enough times that someone in this thread has mentioned the concept of introducing opportunity costs to the game in the context of time limits.

 

[Vault Dweller]

All this talk of "percentages of the audience" reminds me of EA. You guys are working on a couple of games as a hobby. Enough with the delusions of grandeur.

Did I say anything about percentages of the audience?

Your audience wants time limits, challenge, companions that stay dead, and to have to play the game multiple times to see everything. When you talk about market percentages you should realize that the portion of the market that has any interest in your games is not in the majority. It's called a niche.

Really? Bummer.

Yes, I'm well aware that only a small and tiny minority (more of a niche within a niche) will be interested in a game like AoD. However, this small and tiny minority is very vocal and can't agree on pretty much anything (just look at the Codex), and no matter what you do someone will be unhappy (read as bitching for hours and telling everyone that the game is shit). In other words, there is nothing wrong with trying to understand what the majority of people who're interested in your game want to see and why.

 

[Volourn]

That's why one should make the game they want and not worry too much what others think espicially if you are making a niche product. Fuck the whiners.

 

[Davaris]

Fuck the whiners.

I tend to agree. Great art has never been achieved by pandering to a potential audience. So Vault Dweller, if you think you know what makes a great game, then make that game.

 

[Radisshu]

Even most resident Fallout fans here hated the time limit in Fallout, even though it was a very relaxed limit and you could finish the game multiple times in that time. People are so primitive and underdeveloped, mere mention of "time limit" is enough to make them feel constricted.

NO NO NO. Who Fallout-fan hated the 150 days limit? I've often read that claim but I've never found it to be true - not here and certainly not in NMA.

Damn, the 150 days awesome! It made me constantly worry about the vault and the time it took me to travel between towns. I was more than willing to doom Necropolis to die of thirst because I just had no time to dick around trying to get my repair skill up. MY PEOPLE WERE ABOUT TO DIE!

Having 180 seconds to run out of a dungeon is stupid time limit gimmick. Forcing the player to either clear the demon presence in Tower RIGHT NOW or having to surrender the whole place for 'Cleansing' is a good time limit.

I guess Fallout 2 fans didn't like the time limit in F1, but I never had any problems with it. It made me invest my time and dick around less, like you said, but I still managed to complete the game, and I was ten years old at the time. I think it puts the right amount of psychological pressure on you as a player, without crippling the gameplay.

My only complaint is that it's Vault's out of water = Game over. Having some serious but ungameoverly consequences would've been nice.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Fuck the whiners.

I tend to agree. Great art has never been achieved by pandering to a potential audience. So Vault Dweller, if you think you know what makes a great game, then make that game.

Pandering to the audience is one extreme. Not giving a fuck about the audience is another.

Basically, developer's vision is the unchangeable foundation of the game. The audience should be consulted on the rest and the majority's opinion should be taken under advisement. In this particular case, if timed quests are part of the vision, there is nothing to discuss. If the developer doesn't care whether or not quests should be timed, why not ask what most people want to see and why?

 

[hiver]

My only complaint is that it's Vault's out of water = Game over. Having some serious but ungameoverly consequences would've been nice.

I think Fallout should be viewed as an inspiration pool rather then a benchmark to strive up to or something that should be copied.
That game (both) is such a gestalt that even unfinished or not satisfactory mechanics still act as a signal, pointing THIS WAY suckers!
Hell, even bugs managed to play a gameplay role sometimes. Or they just felt like a part of that whole clunky, retro, half-torn Pip boy interface.


Fallout also had this cool thing of mutants raiding the Vault and killing everyone if you sent water to the Vault by caravans from water merchants. Unfortunately in my version it was patched, or cut out.

 

[Davaris]

Pandering to the audience is one extreme. Not giving a fuck about the audience is another.

The audience's job is not to help design your game, or any other artistic work for that matter. Their job is to experience your creation and appreciate it, or reject it. The way I see it, if they were qualified to design games, they would be doing it.

It sounds bloody arrogant reading it back to myself, but that's the way I think it should be done now, beacause if you don't believe in your artistic vision 100%, it has no chance of being a standout work.

I should point out my comments apply to both myself, as well as anyone else outside your team.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pandering to the audience is one extreme. Not giving a fuck about the audience is another.

The audience's job is not to help design your game, or any other artistic work for that matter. Their job is to experience your creation and appreciate it, or reject it. The way I see it, if they were qualified to design games, they would be doing it.

They don't have to be designers to be a part of something. Refusing them this basic courtesy would be a mistake.

It sounds bloody arrogant reading it back to myself, but that's the way I think it should be done now, beacause if you don't believe in your artistic vision 100%, it has no chance of being a standout work.

I think you missed my point.

"...developer's vision is the unchangeable foundation of the game. The audience should be consulted on the rest..."

Overall, everyone can be wrong and I think that the greatest confidence in your vision is not to say that you believe in yourself 100% but to open it to criticism and suggestions. There is no chancel that in a matter as complex as an RPG one person can be right in every fucking aspect, no matter how tiny. You're bound to be wrong and you're bound to make mistakes. The audience can be a great help if you let them.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Naked Ninja, how about you do a poll here? Because at the moment it seems most people here like time limits in some fashion.

Also, the comparison to eating and shitting just isn't valid. It doesn't have anything to do with NPC interaction, unlike the time limit things. Because, like you said, it is simply assumed that the player character will do those things. But it can't be assumed that you hurried for a quest when you in fact didn't.

The point wasn't whether there was NPC interaction or not, the point was that "realism" isn't a good enough motivation if people don't like how the game design decision affects their gameplay experience. .

Except that "realism" doesn't suffer when you don't have to eat or shit in a game. Because as you said earlier, it is simply assumed that you do it in the gameworld. The game just doesn't force you to actually undergo that. But there's no way that you can "assume" that you hurried on a quest when you in fact fucked around for over a month in gameworld time.

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMQAOKeUc-A

Bandwidth in SA is expensive, please summarize the vid for me.

It was just a joke. No More Heroes forces you to take a shit to save your game. Pretty funny.

And aside from that, what about your knowledge skills? Last I checked, you were having progression on those based on time spent studying in the actual game world. You even said that you would need time-sensitive quests in order for you to balance it correctly. So what happened?

Yes, I would need time sensitive quests to make that mechanic work, and the entire main plot would need to be time sensitive. Since I realized and accepted that most people hate that idea, I've abandoned it. It just isn't going to fly. You have to listen to feedback on your ideas or you get blinded by your personal enthusiasm for them

So what's the new system for knowledge skills?

(For anyone interested, the new system for SoW is similar to AoD, quests come in two categories, long-term and short term. Long-term quests have no time limit. Short-term quests also don't technically have a time limit, but they are failed if you leave the region that you're currently in (a region is a hub, a collection of zones, say a city and its outskirts, which don't require any significant travelling time to go between).

This is an abstraction, a compromise between allowing a player to explore the region at their own pace without letting them fuck off halfway across the continent and the quest still being frozen in time when they get back. Technically, you could sleep for days in a region and it wouldn't affect the quest. But go anywhere requiring travel time and the quest moves onto the "failed time constraint" phase.

Is the world continuous in SOW?

Why not just go by situations?

- Say youre involved yourself in a kidnapping case. Youre to deliver the money or somehow save the kid of some noble. kidnappers sent a message to deliver the money in day or two, just for example, to a specific spot.

Now, should that be a timed quest or not?

What should happen if you go galivating around for days and days and fail to do anything else?
Kid should turn up dead somewhere and you blamed for it.
Wont get paid and have further repercussions with either the law or that noble - privately. etc

Who would complain about it being timed?

Depending on what you do in the game you could easily end up with number of this kind of quests in your log at the same time, and find yourself unable to finish all of them within the time constraints. Choices and consequences, you might say, but I am sure not insignificant portion of players would be annoyed. Myself certainly.

Just don't take on any more quests. How is that such a bad thing? You've got this important thing that you need to take care of quickly, so you decide to focus on that until it's taken care of. You can still do the other quests later. All you have to do is invest a little emotion into the game. That's what I always do with rpgs. Anytime something urgent comes up I focus on that as if it really were urgent, even though deep down I know that, gamewise, it likely isn't. So I guess you could say that I larp a little. But really, what's the point of liking C&C if you're not going to get a little emotionally involved?

Anyway, I don't think time limits in quests are really constraining, as long as you focus on that quest. Say you have two days to take care of something in town? Plenty of time, as long as you don't get sidetracked and if it isn't too involved. Now if you could run out time while focusing on a quest, then THAT would be bad. but I've never heard of a time limit that strict, and I doubt that many would ever be implemented.

So that's my take. There's no rush as long as you care about an urgent quest enough to focus on it. But if you can't be arsed to do that, to the point where you carelessly rack up a bunch of other quests and not have time to do them all, then I'd say you don't have true appreciation for C&C and don't deserve to really be talking about it.

 

[Volourn]

"The audience should be consulted on the rest and the majority's opinion should be taken under advisement."

I disagree. The majority's opinion should be thrown in the shitter. As should the minority. Theya re pieces of shit. Make the game as you see fit. Espicially your first game, and then let the judgements fall where they may and then you can make any adjustments you want.

 

[janjetina]

Deciding a priori whether a game will have time limits based on perceived preference of the audience is a bad move (the exception are 'actiony' time limits, like 'you have x minutes to navigate a maze', or 'you have x seconds to defuse a bomb', as they depend on player's dexterity and do not belong to RPGs). This decision should be based on the content and structure of the involved quest(s) and the nature of the game world. So, once the game world and its 'laws' are in place and the content of a particular quest is known, the need (or no need) for time limits follows naturally. Logical consistency of the game world and quests is the most important factor in making decisions regarding time limits.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Games are not Art.

Games are a bench designed by skilled craftsmen, intended for public consumption. You can make your bench in any way you want, but if people tell you it is painful to sit in, ie it is sub-par at fulfilling its purpose, you need to rethink. That purpose could be supporting someones ass or providing enjoyable gameplay to a player.

You don't get huffy about how people don't "understand your vision", that way leads to Pete Molyneaux deluded-ness. Feedback and analysis from your intended customers is a useful tool for self-improvement. My ideas aren't sacred.

Even Art isn't like you guys are making out. If you write a song you'll still play it for people who you respect and then adjust your song based on that feedback. If you write a novel, same thing, you send it to an editor, run it past people for feedback etc. And you don't hand-wave away feedback that says something sucks just because you feel your vision is sacred.

Naked Ninja, how about you do a poll here? Because at the moment it seems most people here like time limits in some fashion.

No offense, but I no longer really trust the Codex as a source of insight, you'll notice how rarely I post here these days. A few posters are still decent but overall the signal-to-noise ratio is getting really bad. I posted in this thread because I helped VD write the article so I thought I'd respond to any feedback.

So what's the new system for knowledge skills?

Sources of Knowledge are a limited, consumable resource. Once a book or teacher has taught you what they know on a subject, you can't repeat them. They give you X "knowledge points" (think an experience bar) in a subject, when you earn enough you reach the next rank in that knowledge skill. Intelligence modifies the amount you receive, so a smart guy might get 150% of the normal points from a book, a dumbass 50%. Intelligence also caps your ability to increase Knowledge past a certain rank.

Knowledge is valuable and controlled. So you tend to need to pay in some way and/or be a part of the right group. And the payment isn't generally insignificant, it's not just about wandering into random houses and rifling through bookshelves until you level up all your knowledge skills.

It is a simple system, but I think it works. If playtest/feedback indicates that people don't like it, again, I will adjust.

Is the world continuous in SOW?

Nope.

 

[hiver]

I disagree with notion that devs dont need to listen and communicate with their audience.

For simple reason that it leads into "We will do it our way POS2 mentality" our dear bethesda is so loved for.

VD and Gareth already explained why it can be good for their own efforts in designing.
Especially if your working with a small team.

Naturally, every designer will have his or her own way of dealing with input from his community, some more some less. And thats quite alright.
Even so a group of interested fans can notice small mistakes and give various different suggestions one man or a few simply cant think off.
And some of those can be accepted sometimes to make a part of the game better.

Its a win-win situation. fans get a sense of contributing to something they love and Devs have a sort of free QA group, beta testers if need be, and are constantly bombarded with all kinds of ideas out of which a few actually can work and improve some part of the game.

Games are interactive medium - as such they require feedback from those that will enjoy them, from those they are intended for.
Just like something you write needs to be read by a few people before you even send it to some publisher.

In Indie business it even more valuable because you create a group of people that are positive about your product and behavior from the get go.

And frankly, a man that allows criticism, even seeks it and is not afraid to consider suggestions from other people actually has a stronger vision of his endeavor then those who refuse any.

 

[Joe Krow]

Basically, developer's vision is the unchangeable foundation of the game. The audience should be consulted on the rest and the majority's opinion should be taken under advisement. In this particular case, if timed quests are part of the vision, there is nothing to discuss. If the developer doesn't care whether or not quests should be timed, why not ask what most people want to see and why?

By that logic a designer with no vision at all will create the most popular product... I think you have the equation in reverse actually. The consumers "taste" should only be relevant at the highest level. The actual implementation is where the designer shows his talent by improving on what's out there.

An opinion poll asks those with no vision to choose between the usual options. In what way is that good design? It's the surest route to mediocrity. If the designer doesn't care about some aspect it should not be included. If something is to be included it should be according to the designers vision not popular opinion.

NN you are a hack. Plain and simple. You would be working at EA if they would have you but they won't. Regardless, you have no business designing an independent game. Indy gamers want "art" not some second rate experiment in merchandising. If it is just construction for you then I sincerely hope it feels like a chore. Next time do something you feel passionate about. The result will show it.

 

[toro]

I don't want to start that discussion again, but I want to mention that somehow BN assumptions were correct in regard to the Redcliff quest.

 

[Mnemon]

Coming from a writer's perspective* - even literature/art doesn't happen in that vacuum of one single person chipping away by themselves. It also very seldom happens by completely disregarding what is happening in the market. Creating art is only one part inspiration and vision. An equally important part of it is to understand that it is a craft like any other. That through practise, revision, analysis and self-analysis and (oh horror!) feedback by others you actually improve and gain something.

A writer that never consults with others about how they perceive the story/novel/poem he/she is writing on disregards a very useful tool. Networking between writers (and among artists) is the rule not the exception. Someone that comes to a story fresh, that is not the writer, will spot inconsistencies, provide the original author with some idea of how the story is read by someone that isn't as involved with actually shaping it. Very few writers ever publish without having their work screened by an editor, which - guess what - will make suggestions on what to change, re-arrange or leave out. This doesn't mean that the original vision or the creative process isn't down to the author in question. But the final product will go through iterations, and will take other's perspective in account.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a game developer - especially in the case of a small team, where there's not a lot of chance of internal feedback - seeking out feedback from their audience. Seeking feedback doesn't mean sheepishly taking over each suggestion, changing design on a whim, or watering down the final product. It just assists the designers to see their own work from a different perspective.
Likewise independent film-makers will seek out audience feedback just like big Hollywood studios.

---------------
*Can provide some credentials, if you really absolutely press me on that. Don't, know, though, given I feel it's always rather silly including them unasked.

 

[hiver]

It actually shows strength of original concept if the designer is willing to present it to his audience and engage in feedback, discuss it and even incorporate some eventual solutions or ideas that make it better as a whole, in the end.

It also shows that designer in question is genuinly interested in making a "good game".

If it has side benefices in cold sections of business as it is and everyday economical factors you simply cannot ignore unless you are a complete moron - all the better.

It is those that are without vision, those without trust in their design that close it off and design it pondering to marketing forces above everything else.
Where actually acknowledging some suggestion by a fan and even doing something about it is considered a sign of weakness. -Which is the usual style of business in almost all mainstream production.


So shut the fuck up you brainwashed mainstream tools!

-

NN you are a hack. Plain and simple. You would be working at EA if they would have you but they won't.

 

[Naked Ninja]

NN you are a hack. Plain and simple. You would be working at EA if they would have you but they won't. Regardless, you have no business designing an independent game. Indy gamers want "art" not some second rate experiment in merchandising. If it is just construction for you then I sincerely hope it feels like a chore. Next time do something you feel passionate about. The result will show it.

Thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind for next time.

 

[Joe Krow]

It actually shows strength of original concept if the designer is willing to present it to his audience and engage in feedback, discuss it and even incorporate some eventual solutions or ideas that make it better as a whole, in the end.

Sounds nice. Have an example?

It also shows that designer in question is genuinely interested in making a "good game".

I guess it comes down to how you define good. EA uses the preferences of the majority to make good games. They all suck.

If it has side benefices in cold sections of business as it is and everyday economical factors you simply cannot ignore unless you are a complete moron - all the better.

...?

It is those that are without vision, those without trust in their design that close it off and design it pondering to marketing forces above everything else.

Who's brainwashed here? You've confused two ideas- you have them preserving an uncompromised creative vision while at the same time pandering to the masses... one cannot do both (unless of course the two are the same but then why make the distinction?).

Where actually acknowledging some suggestion by a fan and even doing something about it is considered a sign of weakness. -Which is the usual style of business in almost all mainstream production.

It is a sign of weakness. A designer should be embarrassed to go to others for ideas or approval. Why not just replace the creative process with a series of polls? Nothing of value can come of this.

 

[hiver]

Shut up.
Your tool brain is capable only in thinking in narrow extremes and that makes what you say seem extremely silly.

And obviously deeply out of idea what a creative process is, even after its been explained to you.

 

[Joe Krow]

Well said Codex. Well said.

 

[hiver]

Its not The Codex talking to you. Its only me.