Interview Chris Avellone Interview Roundup

[Gakkone]

The timer thing was justified in some cases (such as when you have to decide which files from a self-erasing flash drive you want to keep), but mostly it didn't make any sense whatsoever. Why should artificial time constraints be enforced on me when I'm asking a dude about mission objectives?

What? It makes perfect sense. That's not how conversations work in real life, nobody is going to wait for your retort for several minutes until you decide what is the best way to persuade him. The most difficult thing with lying/trying to make an impression is that you have to make a split second decisions about what to say, you have to start talking as soon as your conversation partner finishes or it would be obvious that you aren't sincere and that you are thinking too hard.

Bullshit. In real life I'm not choosing from a few pre-written options with severe consequences determined by someone else. Instead I have a huge vocabulary of ummms and errrs at my disposal and I can diverge the conversation into any direction I want in order to play time. It's not comparable at all.

 

[Liston]

Bullshit. In real life I'm not choosing from a few pre-written options with severe consequences determined by someone else. Instead I have a huge vocabulary of ummms and errrs at my disposal and I can diverge the conversation into any direction I want in order to play time. It's not comparable at all.

Yeah, there is no better way to make an impression than with a bunch of ummms and errrs and by derailing conversation every time you don't know what to say.

Anyway that wasn't my point, I wasn't saying that conversation IRL work the same way as they do in AP, my point is that the biggest problem when trying to persuade someone is time pressure and that because of that it makes sense to design conversation mechanic that includes time pressure.

 

[Gakkone]

Bullshit. In real life I'm not choosing from a few pre-written options with severe consequences determined by someone else. Instead I have a huge vocabulary of ummms and errrs at my disposal and I can diverge the conversation into any direction I want in order to play time. It's not comparable at all.

Yeah, there is no better way to make an impression than with a bunch of ummms and errrs and by derailing conversation every time you don't know what to say.

That was the joke part of my post.

Anyway that wasn't my point, I wasn't saying that conversation IRL work the same way as they do in AP, my point is that the biggest problem when trying to persuade someone is time pressure and that because of that it makes sense to design conversation mechanic that includes time pressure.

And my point is that an arbitrary time limit when choosing from predetermined lines of dialogue isn't a good way to introduce time pressure into conversations. Besides, I disagree that time pressure is the biggest problem when trying to persuade someone, in fact it's the opposite in most real life negotiations, so a mechanic like that doesn't make sense. And the outcome certainly isn't determined by a single choice words like it can be in games.

EDIT: So I'm saying that time limits like the ones in AP make no fucking sense at all and only act as a hindrance to gameplay.

 

[Infinitron]

time limit ... isn't a good way to introduce time pressure

 

[Gakkone]

Selective quoting for the win!

Here's the idea presented in a form that even your mind should comprehend: a strict time limit concerning singular dialogue choices isn't a good way to introduce time pressure into conversations.

 

[Infinitron]

Selective quoting for the win!

Here's the idea presented in a form that even your mind should comprehend: a strict time limit concerning singular dialogue choices isn't a good way to introduce time pressure into conversations.

*shrug* Even if that's true, "introducing time pressure" was the means, not the end.

Obsidian wanted to make a game that had a sense of quick-witted "cinematic flow" in its dialogues. I don't see any other way to do that except with some kind of time limit on every dialogue node.

 

[Roguey]

I never mentioned BIS because it's irrelevant - Bioware was making old school RPGs in the 90s too, but they made the transition to the cinematic in-game narrative style nonetheless. The issue with Obsidian is that they never made the transition till AP. You look at KOTOR II, churned out in six months, and NWN 2, MoTB, SoZ, these aren't games in the same style of Mass Effect. KOTOR and NWN still had that old RPG style of dialogue trees, and their in-game cinematics were limited by the blocky graphics of the KOTOR era. Look at this next gen eye candy:

The difference between a list and a circle is purely aesthetic. Furthermore
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-31-fear-is-the-path-to-the-dark-side

No, the real fault, Avellone says, was Obsidian's eyes being bigger than its belly. "There's a number of design decisions we could have done to de-scope the game. We should have removed all mini-games - that was a huge waste of time. And all those cut-scenes we had, the in-engine sequences: all of those were such a huge pain in the arse to set up and we could never count on them reliably." There's a reason why so many cut-scenes take place on the Ebon Hawk, and that's because Obsidian could ensure people would be standing in the right places when they triggered. Oh and redesigning the interface was also "a huge waste of time".

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/11iox8/we_are_chris_avellone_tim_cain_and_josh_sawyer/c6mtkbg

Chris Avellone looks back:

The issues with K2 are my fault, and no one else's. Looking back, I would have taken more care to focus on the elements of the game that mattered the most: the story and characters, and removed the mini-games, for example (those were a waste of time) and also cast away many of the cut scenes (they cost too much time to do technically, despite how much we liked them).

Bioware learned the ropes through the course of a R&D process on the back of the KOTOR games and NWN, which were the last old school RPGs made by Bioware. Obsidian never had the financial resources Bioware had when they tried to do their own transition, and combined with the fiasco of having to redo Alpha Protocol after Mitsoda left the company, the results came out mediocre. They did improve in New Vegas, but at the end of the day I still don't think Obsidian has the know-how and comfort to move in the cinematic narrative space the way Bioware moves. I've yet to see an Obsidian game that isn't laden with below average graphics production value, for example, when measured against other AAA games.

New Vegas isn't cinematic, nor is Dungeon Siege III (though they went with a cinematic dialogue camera in the latter for reasons I find unfathomable). I'm reasonably confident South Park's cinematics are going to be well-done considering its style.

The graphics are mostly a matter of budget (that can be compensated for with a good art style), and all console western RPGs look worse than their non-RPG contemporaries.

 

[Gurkog]

The IP will be an Aquaman RPG to set up the character for the Justice league movie! That or a Harry Potter RPG.

 

[felipepepe]

Harry Potter RPG.

Done right, that would actually be awesome....

 

[Infinitron]

Harry Potter RPG.

Done right, that would actually be awesome....

Classic thread: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ying-game-set-in-harry-potter-universe.72103/

 

[Duraframe300]

(though they went with a cinematic dialogue camera in the latter for reasons I find unfathomable)

Didn't Nathaniel hint that it was a publisher decision? I seem to recall something like that.

 

[Roguey]

(though they went with a cinematic dialogue camera in the latter for reasons I find unfathomable)

Didn't Nathaniel hint that it was a publisher decision? I seem to recall something like that.

If that's the case it's still unfathomable. Surely Obsidian explained to them that the budget they had could only produce animatronic-looking people rooted firmly in place and that they'd be better off copying Diablo 3.

 

[Gurkog]

Oh, I know! It will be a Hobbit RPG. They can make their Snow White and the 7 dwarves except with a Grumpy old male wizard instead of jail-bait with narcolepsy.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Selective quoting for the win!

Here's the idea presented in a form that even your mind should comprehend: a strict time limit concerning singular dialogue choices isn't a good way to introduce time pressure into conversations.

The only other ways to do that, that I can think of, are:

a) While you have infinite time to think, you can only ask so many questions before the conversation is over.

b) Having a strict time limit to type something. Like, you are surprised by a patrol guard and if you take too long to say the password he'll shoot you.