Interview Frightening Drakensang interview at RPG Vault

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Drakensang

<a href=http://rpgvault.ign.com>RPG Vault</a> has posted an <a href=http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/718/718176p1.html>interview</a> with the <a href=http://www.drakensang.com/><s>Baldur's Gate 3</s> Drakensang</a> (a Das Schwarze Auge game) project director.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The most telling description of Drakensang - The Dark Eye might be something like Baldur's Gate in 3D, but based on The Dark Eye, Germany's biggest RPG system. So, that means it is a classic party-based RPG, without irritating button mashing, but featuring tactical, pausable combat, a skill-based dynamic dialogue system, unique characters and an epic story that plays a very big role. It is set against the backdrop of this amazing fantasy world.
<br>
...
<br>
Drakensang marks an effort to take RPGs back to the roots, appealing to <u>traditional RPG gamers who long for playing a party in a skill-based rule system with pausable combat</u>. We're creating a role-playing game with substance, set in a classic, medieval fantasy world (no UFOs, time travel, firearms, etc.) that also boasts an unbelievable level of detail and lovingly crafted visuals.
<br>
...
<br>
The challenge for us is to get a complex pen and paper system into modern gameplay - <u>and not to torture players with columns of numbers and figures</u>. That's what we are working on.
<br>
...
<br>
<u>Our combat system is modeled on the one in Baldur's Gate</u> - but we want to upgrade and modernize it since it's now a little long in the tooth. We will have the pause key, which allows players to change weapons or sip a potion at any time, but it's our goal that the player won't have to use this key very often.
<br>
...
<br>
Drakensang is like going back to the roots. Finally, there's a real RPG with a party, skill-based combat system and pausable fights...</blockquote>Finally, a game with pausable fights! All my dreams have suddenly come true.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgdot.com">RPG Dot</A>

 

[Goliath]

Oh shit.

 

[MacBone]

Oh, noes! The numbers!!!

 

[vazquez595654]

Q4 2007

 

[Jaesun]

Will we be able to see the fear in the Ork's eyes?

 

[Gwendo]

and not to torture players with columns of numbers and figures

I agree with this. P&P RPGs use all those rules and numbers, because it was the only way to translate 'reality' to paper and make it playable. With computers, there's no need to emulate that.

 

[Dagon]

Q4 2007

Whatever, it will change 4 times anyway.....

 

[Spazmo]

The funny part is that this game actually will be a throwback after the past two or three years.

 

[bryce777]

Well, there is an actual party. That is as close as we are gunna get to a real rpg int he next 4 years so it better fucking be good.

 

[Twinfalls]

featuring tactical, pausable combat

We will have the pause key, which allows players to change weapons or sip a potion at any time, but it's our goal that the player won't have to use this key very often.

Uh huh.

Welcome to the brave new world, where even the bog-standard pause-button in real-time combat gets 'redefined' away.

 

[EvilManagedCare]

How the fuck does "getting back to the roots" mean using pausable combat? If you want to get back to the roots of this series that would mean turn based wouldn't it?

At the same time, none of these disturbing developments are any surprise.

 

[ad hominem]

The player will be able to equip and dress his characters with a never before seen flexibility and level of detail - in minutely detailed 3D.

Yay! A Barbie RPG! I've been waiting for so long!!

 

[DemonKing]

Who cares if the combat is real time with pause?

I don't think that makes or breaks a good CRPG.

Personally it sounds more interesting to me than the crappy Oblivion mods being sold by Bethesda or EA's recently announced "White Council".

Although I fear that Dragon Age (which will no doubt feature real-time with pause combat) may actually be out around the same time and will probably blow this away in the popularity stakes.

 

[sheek]

Who cares if the combat is real time with pause?

I don't think that makes or breaks a good CRPG.

I think it does. Maybe if Drakensang was in a different setting, an RPG where you spend all of your time talking to people and solving quests peacefully. But we know Arkania and 70% of your time will be spent fighting. If the combat system sucks - and 1st person RT is inferior and party based RT sucks a lot - then 70% of the game will suck.

 

[LlamaGod]

Those old roots from not even 10 years ago, they sure are digging deep.

If they really wanted to go old-school roots, they'd make it a turn-based party-based first person RPG ala Wizardry. I'd actually like that, theres been a draught of solid party-based dungeon crawlers. Especially in the turn-based and/or first person category.

Also: Those types of games make better 'hey lets kill shit' games then action RPGs.

 

[Spectacle]

I really don't understand what it is people have against pausable real time. I feel the real time combat in the Baldurs Gate series really captured the spirit of AD&D combat, the battles played out just the way I had always imagined combat in my mind while playing tabletop AD&D.

Turn based combat is used by tabletop games because anything else would be impossible, there's nothing inherently RPGish about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love turn-based tactical games like the X-com series, as well as tabletop wargames. But I don't think there is any reason to reject real-time combat in computer RPGs out of hand.

 

[Goliath]

Who cares if the combat is real time with pause?

I do.

 

[onerobot]

Don't get me wrong, I love turn-based tactical games like the X-com series, as well as tabletop wargames. But I don't think there is any reason to reject real-time combat in computer RPGs out of hand.

RTwP systems trade some of the strategy, thought and planning of turn-based for more imediate and simple thrills, but we're not rejecting the game outright for it. We're rejecting it because the rest of the game seems to be following suit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I really don't understand what it is people have against pausable real time.

It sucks. Other than that, I don't know. Must be some kinda weird prejudice.

I feel the real time combat in the Baldurs Gate series really captured the spirit of AD&D combat, the battles played out just the way I had always imagined combat in my mind while playing tabletop AD&D.

Well, I'm sure that Bethesda feels that Oblivion really captured the spirit of TES games, so...

Turn based combat is used by tabletop games because anything else would be impossible, there's nothing inherently RPGish about it.

Thank God we have camputars now.

Don't get me wrong, I love turn-based tactical games like the X-com series, as well as tabletop wargames. But I don't think there is any reason to reject real-time combat in computer RPGs out of hand.

There are many, many reasons to reject RTwP, but it's been discussed to death before, so now it's like asking "did NWN really suck?".

 

[LlamaGod]

More people need to play Wizardry 8.

I'm serious when I say it feels more like playing D&D then actual D&D games.

 

[Spectacle]

RTwP systems trade some of the strategy, thought and planning of turn-based for more imediate and simple thrills, but we're not rejecting the game outright for it. We're rejecting it because the rest of the game seems to be following suit.

Yes, but why is "strategy, thought and planning" essential to a role-playing game? They are essential for a good strategy game, but surely RPGs need not be strategy games with a thin coating of roleplaying? Deep, turn-based combat in fact conflicts with the goal of role playing your character, as it emphasises player skill rather than character skill in combat. In addition, it affects immersion, as your mind switches from immersive mode to logic-tactical mode whenever combat occurs.

Tactical combat has mostly been abandoned in modern tabletop RPGs, and is considered a vestige of the hobby's wargaming roots. IMHO its about time that CRPGs catch up with these developments.

 

[sheek]

There is no actual reason why RT should be considered more 'modern' than TB. The only reason I can think of is that TB happened to be developed first, obviously technology favored it. Basically all the RT fanboys are saying "hey look that's new, it must be good" falling for the same manipulation washing powder vendors use on TV targetting bored housewives where they have a 'revolutionary' new detergent product every two months. Economically if people didn't fall for it they wouldn't make the ads.

Same with 3D/polygon graphics. They are obviously necessary for FPSes and I can remember when the breakthrough came with the original Quake. But the fact is that 3D takes a big time and skill investment to make than the traditional technologies and the gains just aren't that big for the RPG/Strategy and other genres - and with a fraction the same amount of effort and money there is no reason you could make excellent sprite-based graphics.

It's insane... a big scam on the part of established developers and the media to keep the upper hand knowing they already have the knowledge, scale and financial security (to prolong development several months) which smaller and indie groups don't.

Recently I was talking to some guys doing Project Xenocide (link) a hugely ambitious fan project with many skilled amateurs, started... in 2002. They told me they had spent most of their time doing graphics which they have tons of and that's why they don't have a playable engine yet. I asked why they didn't do 2D: they agreed the game might already be finished but said 'most people will never play a 2D game'...

Of course if nobody bothers to challenge this misconception the gaming demographic will remain brainwashed forever.

Yes, but why is "strategy, thought and planning" essential to a role-playing game? They are essential for a good strategy game, but surely RPGs need not be strategy games with a thin coating of roleplaying? Deep, turn-based combat in fact conflicts with the goal of role playing your character, as it emphasises player skill rather than character skill in combat.

It's the opposite. RT emphasizes skill. TB in an RPG usually doesn't have that much tactics - the point is that the 'playing field' is evened out a lot more. As long as you have a brain pretty much everybody is on the same level... If you don't have a brain you shouldn't be playing an RPG to begin with.

In addition, it affects immersion, as your mind switches from immersive mode to logic-tactical mode whenever combat occurs.

What is immersion? Does it matter? That's another media buzzword. Have you ever really felt transported to another world? I have, never with a computer game but with good books - through mental processes not sensory visual/audio.. If you really feel like you're in another world from watching a movie or playing a PC game then you may be schizophrenic.

You say you play table-top RPGs. How does immersion work into that one? You are sitting there in a living room drinking a soda, playing an elf wizard (check in the mirror: no pointy ears, not wearing robes) and talking to a buddy playing a male orc berserker but who's really an underweight guy (or girl), with white (not green) skin wearing glasses and Reeboks.

 

[vazquez595654]

More people need to play Wizardry 8.

I'm serious when I say it feels more like playing D&D then actual D&D games.

Is that a reason to play it?

I tried, but It's like an undeveloped version of the Might & Magic series. The fighting is excrutiatingly slow, for the only reason I can think of, which is bad design.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

It's the opposite. RT emphasizes skill. TB in an RPG usually doesn't have that much tactics - the point is that the 'playing field' is evened out a lot more. As long as you have a brain pretty much everybody is on the same level... If you don't have a brain you shouldn't be playing an RPG to begin with.

Well,you weasel, is it "deep and tactical" or isn't it? Spectacle is quite right, both aproaches depend on player skill, just on different aspects (tactical planning / reflexes). If they don't (and such cases exist for both models), either aproach is really essentially boring because you would just be filling in for a simple, predetermined task. You become a machine to operate another machine. I think it's essential to accept that CRPG's cannot function as interesting entertainment without the involvement of the player, and that means, in one way or the other, the players skill, too.

As to why I personally dislike party based RTwP games, is that the "action" is simply too chaotic to be enjoyable for me - so I use the pause button so often that the game might as well be turn-based to begin with. It actually feels more epic that way, to me.
With first person, single player games, in contrast, I prefer true real-time action.

 

[Sovard]

More people need to play Wizardry 8.

I'm serious when I say it feels more like playing D&D then actual D&D games.

Ah, Wizardry 8. The one game I know of where negative status causing spells have a use.