Interview RPG Codex Interview: Dan Vávra (Warhorse Studios)

[Metro]

Blah blah blah, wake me when you have something to show regarding this cutting edge open world game you're developing (other than just a hiking tour).

 

[Lemon]

The Disney comment rings true. Bethesda and Bioware are both guilty of this, they create these worlds that resemble theme parks - not living, breathing, ecosystems.

 

[Metro]

They create what their dumbed down audience wants them to make.

 

[Saxon1974]

This whole realism discussion is all over the place. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FANTASY WORLD AND THE REAL WORLD. I get it that most western RPG's take their influences from the western medieval era in many things but I dont think the goal was ever to make a game that was realistic and historically accurate to the real world. Daniel made a comment sounding like he knows better how to make castles than an American developer because he lives close to them which is silly, its not like they cant be researched and studied by anyone in the world and made accurate in a game, I just dont think most RPG developers are trying to do that.

This all being said, I do agree with his comments about things being "realistic" or at least an attempt to make them that way so I just think he came across a bit odd.

So Daniel, is this planned to be a low magic open fantasy world based on realism from the real medieval era? Or are you leaning more toward really simulating a real medieval world? I would love to see an open world RPG that was a medieval world simulator. I think creating a sandbox game with some of the things you mentioned (large populated cities, realistic castles, realistic AI etc...) is going to be difficult. Also if you go top of the line as far as user PC's can handle you might have a chance but then you wont sell many copies since the console market is so much larger. PC developers used to push the envelope on tech and what you could do in a game now they dumb down to be able to port to consoles...sure wish it wasn't that way.

 

[Absinthe]

In my opinion, RPG is a game, where PLAYER takes ROLE of some CHARACTER and becomes him. ROLE PLAYING GAME. The difference between any other game and RPG is, that the "simulation" of the character behaviour and his progress and development is much deeper. I can get better, stronger, smarter, sick, married etc. and my actions affect the world as well. Some things must be represented by numbers, because there is no other way how to tell the player how good he is at something, because he cant feel his body (strenght), some other values could be represented visually and realtime, because graphics made a huge leap forward since 70s when it all started, but in the background, its still numbers and stats, player just doesnt need to see it, because he sees the real thing.

That is not a RPG. That is a Adventure game. It looks like you are making an Action Adventure to me and calling it a RPG.

To me, the difference between the two genres is that in a RPG the player plays a character, and in an adventure game the player becomes the character. In other words, in a RPG, you can have a character with low intelligence, and be unable to choose the best solution even if the player notices it. This is because the player does not make the decision. The character makes it. The player is restricted by the role he takes. But, in an Adventure game, if a player does not choose the best option, this is not because the character is unable to do it. It is because the player made a bad decision.

So, RPGs allow players to experience interesting situations based on their role (ie. going through a forest is a very different experience if you play a herbalist who is too scared to fight bears than if you play a brave warrior who sucks at hiding), and Adventure games allow players to experience worlds based on what the player wants to do (If you want to fight the bear, you fight him. If you want to carefully avoid the bear, you avoid him.).

Either one can have stats/skills/levelups/etc. But RPGs usually need them because that is how a character's role is determined. (We are not talking about JRPGs because they are completely different.)

So Skyrim is the biggest and best open world western fantasy rpg, which is what i basically tried to say.

Nope. Ultima

I will just answer that stats part. HOLY FUCK! OF COURSE THAT YOU ARE DEVELOPING YOUR SKILLS! THATS THE REASON WHY IT IS AN RPG! ITS AN RPG - YOU ARE GETTING BETER! HOW? SURPRISINGLY BY DOING STUFF AND LEARNING. What a surprise! Maybe when you want to talk with other people, its a good start not to take them as retarded idiots. Because all this is totally obvious from what i have said here. Seems that you just want to argue so about that archer - yes you have to aim, yes you have to do it with your controller, yes some people will be better at this than others, but since its an rpg and strenght is very important for shooting the longbow, the bigger your strenght, the bigger os the damage, you will shoot further, it will take less stamina and your hands will be shaking a less, which will make the aiming easier. Just like in real life. Have you ever tried to shoot a longbow? I did and it works just like that.

...Right. Anyway, what's Warhorse got on the choices & consequences end? Any meaningful decisions which will hurt you later? Branching paths to take? Etc.?

 

[Indranys]

It would really be helpful, if you actually read what I wrote, before you answer. If you did, you would probably not whine about the stuff I havent said.

Marvelous, Another dev has a good time at the Codex.

Endure. In enduring, grow strong.

 

[Irxy]

What's the point of realism? RPGs aren't about reallism! They're games.

Realistic fantasy is still >>> stupid fantasy. And realistic is when it looks believable and feels coherent, not a simulation.

 

[Captain Shrek]

What's the point of realism? RPGs aren't about reallism! They're games.

Realistic fantasy is still >>> stupid fantasy. And realistic is when it looks believable and feels coherent, not a simulation.

In that case realism is an unfortunate way to address plot consistency and coherence, which is necessary for all good stories anyway. Realism in the real world, is about putting explicit elements from REAL LIFE into text. e.g. Your D-Day invasion scene from Saving Private Ryan.

 

[deuxhero]

Sleeping Dogs and Dragon's Dogma actually did rather well from what I've read (DD was a slow steady success and not a runaway profit, but it made quite a bit of money from what Capcom has said).

Speaking of Dragon's Dogma: Will Warhorse's RPG let me play as a loli?

 

[Irxy]

In that case realism is an unfortunate way to address plot consistency and coherence, which is necessary for all good stories anyway. Realism in the real world, is about putting explicit elements from REAL LIFE into text. e.g. Your D-Day invasion scene from Saving Private Ryan.

I'm not talking just about plot, but design in general. Some things are technically limited of course, like cities with 15 houses and 50 citizens, but i.e. making a house with an oven but not a chimney is just lazy, and when there are a lot of such stupid things in different game aspects and elements, its not a good or negligible thing. So if there is a castle in a game, I'd prefer it to look realistic - that is, able to perform a function castles are made for in a 1st place; it shouldn't be a simulation nor reconstuction of some real historic castle, but totally not a overstylized crap made by someone who knows nothing about architecture and castles with the only goal to look "cool". Such things are ok in anime games, but I expect more from western rpgs.

 

[Irxy]

Speaking of Dragon's Dogma: Will Warhorse's RPG let me play as a loli?

Such things are better left to mods.

 

[Captain Shrek]

In that case realism is an unfortunate way to address plot consistency and coherence, which is necessary for all good stories anyway. Realism in the real world, is about putting explicit elements from REAL LIFE into text. e.g. Your D-Day invasion scene from Saving Private Ryan.

I'm not talking just about plot, but design in general. Some things are technically limited of course, like cities with 15 houses and 50 citizens, but i.e. making a house with an oven but not a chimney is just lazy, and when there are a lot of such stupid things in different game aspects and elements, its not a good or negligible thing. So if there is a castle in a game, I'd prefer it to look realistic - that is, able to perform a function castles are made for in a 1st place; it shouldn't be a simulation nor reconstuction of some real historic castle, but totally not a overstylized crap made by someone who knows nothing about architecture and castles with the only goal to look "cool". Such things are ok in anime games, but I expect more from western rpgs.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...sics-intermezzo-realism-in-video-games.69743/

 

[Rhuantavan]

This thread needs some more castle.

 

[Mrowak]

That's one of my point: in RT games, strategy usually end up only being about maneuvering (in most case, it's just moving around quckly just to avoid your enemies' attacks). That's where TB and phase based game seems more tactical to me.

Which is extremely ironic because real-life tactics is all about maneuvering. In fact the chief line in favour of party-based TB RPGs is that they allow greater degree of maneuver control than RT counterparts. Then again RT, single character RPGs excel at just that.

"maneuvering (in most case, it's just moving around quckly just to avoid your enemies' attacks)"
You really need to take the time and read.

And? That's tactical approach as well... I mean I would love to if they introduced backstab and attack from the side options. So let's relegate stats there, where they are needed shall we?

Enemy speed vs. your speed. For example, the player should not be able to outrun (and kite) a bear, which is much faster over long distances. No kiting for you in that case. So how about put stats there and resign from "to hit" rolls?

That's an idea. Not sure what it would end up like. But that's something I would consider, yes. At least that's a gameplay element we can talk about and it's not "we couldn't do it in the past cause computer weren't powerful enough" like the Czech guy wrote.

Well partially they couldn't. There really were technical limitations against that. I mean, let's imagine speed is associated with "acrobatics" skill which lets you dodge enemy attacks better and gain speed momentum faster in short distances. Additionally this skill basically boosts responsiveness of controls, prevents staggering in combat and unlocks a few deadly attacks player can use, but only if your character wears light or no armour. It's consequential, it's meaningful, it clearly is a part of character progression.

That was not feasible in the past.

That's fair enough, because stats never create gameplay. In other words you are overestimating their importance.

You realise that anyway, the game will use stats, right? I'm certain that a small sword will do less damage than a claymore.

So there you have it - your beloved stats put into good use in the place they should have been from the start.

Well, it will have to be a skill with something, right? Also, it's not like he promised a tactical wargame? Or did he?

Should I really remind you that RPGs are derivated from wargame? If the RPG has a strong combat component and it claims to be an RPG, I expect an minimum of tactics, yes. But of course, it may not be a game focused on combat. Who knows? (maybe the developer but he won't tell us.).

That's not a reason not to try something in another direction. I mean humans derive from apes, but that's not a good enough reason to live in a jungle, right? I know this is an extreme and unfair comparison, because TB RPGs can be fun and living in a jungle not so much (unless that's your thing). Btw, if you haven't played it yet, you *must* get King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame. I am playing it now, and I have to say I am enjoying it immensely. There stats and abilities are justified to be in indirect control of the player, because you command armies and heroes as opposed to a single entity, where to much reliance of stats would be just artificial.

The problem here wasn't that there were stats. The problem was that the game was not balanced well after the 15th level. Game imbalance can happen in all kinds of games.

Getting rid of stats, or relegating them to another facet of gameplay may provide such balance.

The Czech guy didn't say he wouldn't use stats. He said they wouldn't be visible. That's not a novelty.

Well, he didn't say it is a novelty. This is just his approach. A risy one, but a good one as well.

Methinks, the dispute we are having here really comes down to form vs. function.

Your position is: The game in question is not an RPG because it doesn't have the same form that RPGs historically were known to take.

My position: The game in question would be an RPG (it's not finished yet) IFF the mechanics the devs implement covered all the *functions* that traditional forms and structures, such as stats are ment to perform.

 

[Smejki]

yes you have to aim, yes you have to do it with your controller,

True. Controllers made New Vegas suddenly a badly designed popamole. Oh wait!
Well, good games are not about controllers, mate.

So Skyrim is the biggest and best open world western fantasy rpg, which is what i basically tried to say.

Nope. Ultima

I remember Dan saying he was playing some of the earlier Ultima games some year or so ago and he enjoyed it very much. But in this context he speaks about recent games, not a two decades old grannies.

 

[evdk]

True. Controllers made New Vegas suddenly a badly designed popamole. Oh wait!
Well, good games are not about controllers, mate.

It says something about Dan's design priorities when he uses "controller" when talking about moving around in the game world. Sorry, but for me this suggests it's another one of those games released primarily for consoles with a halfassed PC port in the works. And good games (like NV) are often good despite their control mechanisms - stupid huge interface with list inventory, here we go.

If Dan came here to promote the game these are the small touches that make local jaded inmates residents distrustful, you know.

I remember Dan saying he was playing some of the earlier Ultima games some year or so ago and he enjoyed it very much. But in this context he speaks about recent games, not a two decades old grannies.

Nice spin, but not really. :kalousek:

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

In my opinion, RPG is a game, where PLAYER takes ROLE of some CHARACTER and becomes him. ROLE PLAYING GAME. The difference between any other game and RPG is, that the "simulation" of the character behaviour and his progress and development is much deeper. I can get better, stronger, smarter, sick, married etc. and my actions affect the world as well. Some things must be represented by numbers, because there is no other way how to tell the player how good he is at something, because he cant feel his body (strenght), some other values could be represented visually and realtime, because graphics made a huge leap forward since 70s when it all started, but in the background, its still numbers and stats, player just doesnt need to see it, because he sees the real thing.

That is not a RPG. That is a Adventure game. It looks like you are making an Action Adventure to me and calling it a RPG.

To me, the difference between the two genres is that in a RPG the player plays a character, and in an adventure game the player becomes the character. In other words, in a RPG, you can have a character with low intelligence, and be unable to choose the best solution even if the player notices it. This is because the player does not make the decision. The character makes it. The player is restricted by the role he takes. But, in an Adventure game, if a player does not choose the best option, this is not because the character is unable to do it. It is because the player made a bad decision.

So, RPGs allow players to experience interesting situations based on their role (ie. going through a forest is a very different experience if you play a herbalist who is too scared to fight bears than if you play a brave warrior who sucks at hiding), and Adventure games allow players to experience worlds based on what the player wants to do (If you want to fight the bear, you fight him. If you want to carefully avoid the bear, you avoid him.).

Either one can have stats/skills/levelups/etc. But RPGs usually need them because that is how a character's role is determined. (We are not talking about JRPGs because they are completely different.)

So Skyrim is the biggest and best open world western fantasy rpg, which is what i basically tried to say.

Nope. Ultima

I will just answer that stats part. HOLY FUCK! OF COURSE THAT YOU ARE DEVELOPING YOUR SKILLS! THATS THE REASON WHY IT IS AN RPG! ITS AN RPG - YOU ARE GETTING BETER! HOW? SURPRISINGLY BY DOING STUFF AND LEARNING. What a surprise! Maybe when you want to talk with other people, its a good start not to take them as retarded idiots. Because all this is totally obvious from what i have said here. Seems that you just want to argue so about that archer - yes you have to aim, yes you have to do it with your controller, yes some people will be better at this than others, but since its an rpg and strenght is very important for shooting the longbow, the bigger your strenght, the bigger os the damage, you will shoot further, it will take less stamina and your hands will be shaking a less, which will make the aiming easier. Just like in real life. Have you ever tried to shoot a longbow? I did and it works just like that.

...Right. Anyway, what's Warhorse got on the choices & consequences end? Any meaningful decisions which will hurt you later? Branching paths to take? Etc.?

So how do I force player who plays the herbalist to be scared in the forest? I think, that the only method is to make him weaker than potential threats in the forest. But what if he is herbalist/bodybuilder/martial artist? BEcause my game is an open world game and people can become whatewer they want to and you know, in real world, people dont allways fall into cliched archetypes. And most of all - how do I prevent people from making "non rpg" decisions? Its an open world game, anyone can do whatewer he wants to! Or should I make the game, where herbalist cant do the stuff warrior could do, because its more RPG? I dont think so.

Yeah, Ultima, you wouldnt believe me, but I heard about that one. Hell, I am kinda old, so I even played that game. It was great, BUT IT WAS 32 YEARS AGO! I am living in the present, I was talking about current games. BTW, Ultima VII had realtime combat, what a piece of shit Or not?

Regarding our game, you all clever people just opened my mind. Now I see, that I am developing linear first person shooter.

 

[Shadenuat]

I like the guy. That kind of honesty is something you can't but appreciate in the bullshit-heavy world of game development.
So he wants to run around as a hedge knight in a Skyrimesque world but one which actually makes sense and is inspired by real history and architecture. Whatever, I'd play that. Not to mention that Mafia, at least the first part, is probably one of the most stylish and clever sandboxes I've played (still remember the speed and gas limits). Second game was dissapointing in many aspects (banal gunfights, less simulation, QTEs).

 

[Mrowak]

In my opinion, RPG is a game, where PLAYER takes ROLE of some CHARACTER and becomes him. ROLE PLAYING GAME. The difference between any other game and RPG is, that the "simulation" of the character behaviour and his progress and development is much deeper. I can get better, stronger, smarter, sick, married etc. and my actions affect the world as well. Some things must be represented by numbers, because there is no other way how to tell the player how good he is at something, because he cant feel his body (strenght), some other values could be represented visually and realtime, because graphics made a huge leap forward since 70s when it all started, but in the background, its still numbers and stats, player just doesnt need to see it, because he sees the real thing.

That is not a RPG. That is a Adventure game. It looks like you are making an Action Adventure to me and calling it a RPG.

To me, the difference between the two genres is that in a RPG the player plays a character, and in an adventure game the player becomes the character. In other words, in a RPG, you can have a character with low intelligence, and be unable to choose the best solution even if the player notices it. This is because the player does not make the decision. The character makes it. The player is restricted by the role he takes. But, in an Adventure game, if a player does not choose the best option, this is not because the character is unable to do it. It is because the player made a bad decision.

So, RPGs allow players to experience interesting situations based on their role (ie. going through a forest is a very different experience if you play a herbalist who is too scared to fight bears than if you play a brave warrior who sucks at hiding), and Adventure games allow players to experience worlds based on what the player wants to do (If you want to fight the bear, you fight him. If you want to carefully avoid the bear, you avoid him.).

Either one can have stats/skills/levelups/etc. But RPGs usually need them because that is how a character's role is determined. (We are not talking about JRPGs because they are completely different.)

So Skyrim is the biggest and best open world western fantasy rpg, which is what i basically tried to say.

Nope. Ultima

I will just answer that stats part. HOLY FUCK! OF COURSE THAT YOU ARE DEVELOPING YOUR SKILLS! THATS THE REASON WHY IT IS AN RPG! ITS AN RPG - YOU ARE GETTING BETER! HOW? SURPRISINGLY BY DOING STUFF AND LEARNING. What a surprise! Maybe when you want to talk with other people, its a good start not to take them as retarded idiots. Because all this is totally obvious from what i have said here. Seems that you just want to argue so about that archer - yes you have to aim, yes you have to do it with your controller, yes some people will be better at this than others, but since its an rpg and strenght is very important for shooting the longbow, the bigger your strenght, the bigger os the damage, you will shoot further, it will take less stamina and your hands will be shaking a less, which will make the aiming easier. Just like in real life. Have you ever tried to shoot a longbow? I did and it works just like that.

...Right. Anyway, what's Warhorse got on the choices & consequences end? Any meaningful decisions which will hurt you later? Branching paths to take? Etc.?

So how do I force player who plays the herbalist to be scared in the forest? I think, that the only method is to make him weaker than potential threats in the forest. But what if he is herbalist/bodybuilder/martial artist? BEcause my game is an open world game and people can become whatewer they want to and you know, in real world, people dont allways fall into cliched archetypes. And most of all - how do I prevent people from making "non rpg" decisions? Its an open world game, anyone can do whatewer he wants to! Or should I make the game, where herbalist cant do the stuff warrior could do, because its more RPG? I dont think so.

Yeah, Ultima, you wouldnt believe me, but I heard about that one. Hell, I am kinda old, so I even played that game. It was great, BUT IT WAS 32 YEARS AGO! I am living in the present, I was talking about current games. BTW, Ultima VII had realtime combat, what a piece of shit Or not?

Regarding our game, you all clever people just opened my mind. Now I see, that I am developing linear first person shooter.

Calm down, bro. This is a day like any other on the 'Dex. Whining, sniveling and throwing tantrums. "If you want to have enemies try to change do something", and all that. That said, I think some of the concerns presented here are valid - they are just not articulated well enough. What the lads perceived in your game stands in direct opposition to what they are accustomed to, and what they love. The place where you dropped the ball was saying:

Years ago, when we played pen and paper, our goal was to experience something and make it as real as possible. The rules were the tools to make sure that the “simulation” would be accurate. When the computer RPGs started to appear, the premise was the same: I want to simulate how it is to be a knight wandering in a huge world, doing various stuff. [...]

[...]So the RPG is no more about the dices and stats—it could be completely skill-based and it will finally resemble the real world as we all desired back in the days of pen and paper.

Even I beg to differ, because many of those stat based games still hold strong, offering great gameplay all the way. Titles like King Arthur, Knights of the Chalice and upcoming Wasteland 2 come to my mind. And with this unfortunate sentence you just handwaved them and gameplay potential they offered. In other words your direction may be right but it's clearly not the only one. To our eyes you just ignored what RPGs are about.

I would also agree with Codexian sentiment that "simulationsim", i.e. "resembling a real world" may not be the best approach. Games are most about "fun" - and simulation is all about reflecting real life, which is often at odds with one another. If you can make that simulation of yours fun (by creqating challenge and avoidining mundane tasks), only then we can talk about success.

Lastly, our lot is used to promises of this kind, and quite sadly, no one has delivered what you are talking about so far. Yes, in the end all we received were corridor shooters (Mass Effect) and body-rolling simulators (Witcher 2), that simply failed to capture what RPGs of yesteryears managed singlehandedly: adventure, challenge, and magic.

 

[Smejki]

True. Controllers made New Vegas suddenly a badly designed popamole. Oh wait!
Well, good games are not about controllers, mate.

It says something about Dan's design priorities when he uses "controller" when talking about moving around in the game world. Sorry, but for me this suggests it's another one of those games released primarily for consoles with a halfassed PC port in the works. And good games (like NV) are often good despite their control mechanisms - stupid huge interface with list inventory, here we go.

If Dan came here to promote the game these are the small touches that make local jaded inmates residents distrustful, you know.

And I am not surprised. Experience taught us that most multiplatform games are poorly ported to PC. Yet experience should also teach us that this is not inevitable state. DXHR was well ported to PC as well as Witcher 2 fully respected PC platform.

Yes, Warhorse RPG aims for consoles for one simple reason. It is a big expensive game and console means money. Money to get from a big boys to develop it and money from players to have profit and thus to be able to work. But it doesn't mean it will be console exclusive nor does it mean it will be a shitty port. It might become either but doesn't have to. Again, people here should stop acting like kids, raging about keywords.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Daniel.Vavra Are you developing your RPG for next-gen or this-gen consoles? (If you are at liberty to disclose this.) Sorry if it's been asked before.

 

[Jedi Exile]

I don't like this. They just keep going on and on that their RPG will be better than Skyrim. So it seems to me that Warhorse wants basically a Skyrim clone that 'will be better than Skyrim'. Don't want to be negative, but things just don't work this way.

 

[Smejki]

Daniel.Vavra Are you developing your RPG for next-gen or this-gen consoles? (If you are at liberty to disclose this.) Sorry if it's been asked before.

Next, if nothing changed

 

[evdk]

And I am not surprised. Experience taught us that most multiplatform games are poorly ported to PC. Yet experience should also teach us that this is not inevitable state. DXHR was well ported to PC as well as Witcher 2 fully respected PC platform.

Yes, Warhorse RPG aims for consoles for one simple reason. It is a big expensive game and console means money. Money to get from a big boys to develop it and money from players to have profit and thus to be able to work. But it doesn't mean it will be console exclusive nor does it mean it will be a shitty port. It might become either but doesn't have to. Again, people here should stop acting like kids, raging about keywords.

IIRC Twitcher's X-box version was developed separately, not concurrently. And released about a year later.
Also I do not much care about the harsh realities of the industry that make multiplatform titles a necessity, this is the RPGCodex, not IGN. PC primary or fuck off. The controller slip up is not filling me with optimism, but I am willing to be proven wrong.

Yeah, Ultima, you wouldnt believe me, but I heard about that one. Hell, I am kinda old, so I even played that game. It was great, BUT IT WAS 32 YEARS AGO! I am living in the present, I was talking about current games. BTW, Ultima VII had realtime combat, what a piece of shit Or not?

U7 RT combat is fucking shit, slightly mitigated by Exult's RTwP features, but it's still total shit, which is why I prefer U6.

Regarding our game, you all clever people just opened my mind. Now I see, that I am developing linear first person shooter.

rpg codex > your daily antidote to thinking you’re getting anywhere in the world of CRPGs

 

[Irxy]

IIRC Twitcher's X-box version was developed separately, not concurrently. And release about a year later.

Yup, but it was still developed with a console release in mind, thus we have a crappy gaypaddy interface.