Game News Dragon Age forum updates: non-violent solutions

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: BioWare; Dragon Age

It's time to see what our Bioware pals have been up to. Currently David Gaider is battling the hordes of local fauna who ask all kinda idiotic questions like "Does the game has high replayability?" What kinda answer do they expect? "Uh, no, not really, it sucks so badly that most people won't even finish it"? Anyway, the latest topic is <a href=http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=411659&forum=84>Non-Violent Solutions to Violent Problems</a>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Generally when setting up an encounter or a plot, I put in what paths seem appropriate to the story and the situation. I wouldn't put in a "non-violent" solution just to have it in there... I would put it in if there was a way to do so that was as fun as the other paths. It's not a design goal in and of itself.
<br>
<br>
Does this mean that Dragon Age is some mindless hack-and-slash game? No, but the story centers on epic events and warfare. Look at the story in Lord of the Rings, for example, and ask yourself if 1/3 of the conflicts therein could or should have been avoided.
<br>
...
<br>
I think it would be fun to play a diplomat if the story catered to making that a meaningful path. Not all stories are going to allow that as a possibility.
<br>
...
<br>
This isn't about whether the combat is mindless or not, though you seem to be trying to make it about that. I'm not arguing that combat shouldn't be more meaningful.
<br>
<br>
Combat is, however, a big part of most RPG's... as you point out yourself... and DA will be no different in that respect. Why? Because it's exciting and fun. Getting experience and leveling up is part of what most people find fun about it.
<br>
<br>
I get it that you think there should be story in every fight, and that you disagree with me when I say that avoiding combat is not a goal in and of itself. I believe, however, that that is an idea that only sounds good in concept and does not work in practice. There will be encounters that do not result in combat or where combat can be avoided in DA, probably more than we've even done before, but that is not the point of the game nor is it the point of an RPG.
<br>
...
<br>
Why? What is so special about avoiding fights that it makes for good roleplaying? If avoiding combat can be done in a fun way that fits the story, then great. It's not a goal in and of itself, and that's all I'm saying.
<br>
...
<br>
Sorry? No, I didn't. I said that there was nothing very epic about being able to avoid every combat in the game. I also said that the game would focus on epic events and warfare. That's not the same thing with equating epic with lots of slaughtering at all.</blockquote>
<br>
Discuss
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[Volourn]

Why don't you state your opinion so I can disagree with your Gaider bashing pronto? <.

Anyways, I agree with him for the most part. Avoiding combat for the sake of avoiding combat is a poor way to set up role-playing.

Avoiding combat should make sense story, character, and situation wise. Multiple ways to complete quests is *always* a good thing; but should flow normally. The last thing I'd hate is for eveyr quest to convinetly have a door to be picked by rogues, dialogue for talkers to talk their way out of, and combat for barbarians who wanna kill. That would get boring. If clicking on dialogue repeatedly is one's definietion of role-playing; they don't know what role-playing is.

 

[Balor]

Who's this guy? I hope not game desing staff, cause his views on what makes an RPG suck.
Think of it as irrelevant rant, but after reading such words, it becomes quite clear what kind of thoughts inhabited head of G. Bush v2.0 when he planned attack on Iraq.
Reminds me of Sharnel (or Charnel?) from Sacrifice:
"Death is not an answer to everything... torture also has it's merits".
Heh, and about Volourn comment - yea, right you are.
But, I fear, what you say is not what Gaider thinks.

 

[Fez]

*snip*

I've got to agree with Volourn on that. I don't think it is wise to demand a different solution to every problem tailored to each archetype, diplomat, thief, fighter, whatever. Sometimes there is no chance to talk yourself out of trouble, no matter how good - it is the designer's job to make it feel like a realistic solution (within the rules of the game world), not to follow a tired template. Although I'd still be impressed if a game had it, I don't think that a RPG must have a totally pacifist path, for instance. Some people just need killing. If they can make an alternate path that doesn't seem to contrived then that is fine, but don't just shoehorn one into every quest just to try to please everyone. Definitely no avoiding combat just for the sake of it. It will just look stupid. If you can't make it look good, natural and fitting with the story, don't do it at all.

 

[obediah]

I admire the (insert nickname for people that want non-violent options for every conflict in a game) crowd for championing their cause, but Bioware is going to stick to Bioware games. Rather than putting their time into implementing multiple paths through a game, they go for a longer game. So they end up with something that is a cRPG, but maybe not an RPG.

Assuming an equally good plot, it's a tough, subjective call whether to have an 80 hr game mostly on rails, or a 20 hr game where each situation has multiple resolutions that feed back into the main storyline, or a 5 hr game that completely diverges based on your actions, or a 3 hr game with big divergences that still resolve around the same plot. For big projects it's even harder to go heavy on branching because you end up with a huge cost skew towards writers, scripters, voice talent, etc...

All that said, this guy just doesn't grok whay choice is great in RPGs, or he knows that it isn't bioware's priority and he's so sick of try to explain this that he just says some stupid stuff and moves on.

 

[Balor]

Well, but how about stealth-type characters? Or, after all, there ARE pacifist-type characters out there. Why not? And while I agree with Fez and Volourn, looks like you miss something that seems to hold the key to his reasoning:

Combat is, however, a big part of most RPG's... as you point out yourself... and DA will be no different in that respect. Why? Because it's exciting and fun. Getting experience and leveling up is part of what most people find fun about it.

So, the he as much as confessed that he thinks that the greatest RPG of all times is Diablo. Ouch.

 

[Taoreich]

At first glance, David seems to be arguing in context i.e. the stress upon "the game would focus on epic events and warfare" but I can't help but get the feeling that it's not limited to DA. The more I read from him, the more I get the sense that David's RPG is focused on having the player assume the mantel of a pre-defined role in an effort to better tell a story as opposed to creating a world in which the player can find their own role within the setting.

While this may be obvious to some, I note it because in that vein, the message is more, "I can't/won't do 'X' because then I can't tell the story that I want to tell" as opposed to "I can't/won't do 'X' because it might damage your experience"

Or maybe it doesn't matter.

 

[Volourn]

"Heh, and about Volourn comment - yea, right you are.
But, I fear, what you say is not what Gaider thinks."

Um.. That's what's exactly what he is saying just with more words. DA's story is going to be an epic about war suppsoedly. This means, chances are, there will be combat. And, maybe evn lots of it. Nowhere does it say that the game will be on rails. In fact, he states clearly there will be more than few times will there will be non violent ways to do things in the game. Double in fact, Gaider stated that'll probably have the most of that type of thing than any other BIO game. That's a good thing.

Bottom line is avoiding combat for the sake of avoiding combat is poor design. Period.


"So, the he as much as confessed that he thinks that the greatest RPG of all times is Diablo. Ouch."

Are youd enything the fact that combat is probablyone fo the most popular if not the most popualr aprt of CRPGs? i sure hope not. Afterall, even FO, one of its greatest praised features is its tb combat system. People love combat. Period.

And, nowhere does it even emply that he thinks Diablo is the GREATEST RPG of all time. Though; you'd be hard pressed not agree that it is likely the most popular 'CRPG' ever.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It looks like VD has no argument on this one, so he's resorted to insulting David Gaider instead with straw-men arguments.

What's the point of having a non-violent solution if having a non-violent solution makes no sense at all? It's like trying to negotiate a peace treaty with the Al Qaeda. It makes no sense because it makes the Al Qaeda characters seem like unrealistic, one dimensional characters who would go along with anything you propose with no regard for their own personal motivations. It would speak quite poorly of character design.

There's a time and a place for non-violent solutions: take the Master in Fallout as an example. You can convince him to commit suicide because he isn't 'evil' per se. However, I don't recall any 'non-violent' solutions in dealing with all those angry raiders you come across in the wilderness every now and then. You can run away, but that isn't really a 'non-violent' solution in the sense David Gaider is talking about.

I have to agree with Volourn on this one.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It looks like VD has no argument on this one, so he's resorted to insulting David Gaider instead with straw-men arguments.

Huh? Where did I insult him? What straw-men argument?

Just for the record, I do have a position on that one. I'm in favor of having a 100% non-violent path options in RPGs (had a long battle with Role-Player on that issue).

Most people look at the issue too narrowly, i.e. they expect you to sneak all the way which is boring, imo, or to convince everyone to lay down their arms which is stupid. There is a third way - the third party, i.e. having someone else to do that for you. I think it was Saint who suggested a similar workaround for Bloodlines' sewers. It would have been nice if you could talk to the city's officials and have them either flood the sewers temporarily thus washing away the flesh monsters or have them send some troops to clean up the sewers or asking Hollywood vampires for help giving them something in return.

However, that doesn't mean that I hate games that don't have that by default or that I've ever expected such a feature from Bio in the first place.

 

[Sarvis]

Well, but how about stealth-type characters? Or, after all, there ARE pacifist-type characters out there. Why not?

So you would argue that in Fallout you should be able to talk the Rad Scorpions into not attacking that village, rather than clearing out their cave?

And while I agree with Fez and Volourn, looks like you miss something that seems to hold the key to his reasoning:

Combat is, however, a big part of most RPG's... as you point out yourself... and DA will be no different in that respect. Why? Because it's exciting and fun. Getting experience and leveling up is part of what most people find fun about it.

So, the he as much as confessed that he thinks that the greatest RPG of all times is Diablo. Ouch.

Oh yes, put words in his mouth. That really boosts your argument.

He didn't say anything that wasn't true. Most people DO find combat to be the most fun part of an RPG. Frankly I get bored as hell sneaking past enemies, unless it's in a more action oriented environment like Metal Gear Solid. Waiting for that one bad roll that reveals you to an enemy while moving at half speed is just not fun.

 

[Sarvis]

It looks like VD has no argument on this one, so he's resorted to insulting David Gaider instead with straw-men arguments.

Huh? Where did I insult him? What straw-men argument?

Just for the record, I do have a position on that one. I'm in favor of having a 100% non-violent path options in RPGs (had a long battle with Role-Player on that issue).

Most people look at the issue too narrowly, i.e. they expect you to sneak all the way which is boring, imo, or to convince everyone to lay down their arms which is stupid. There is a third way - the third party, i.e. having someone else to do that for you. I think it was Saint who suggested a similar workaround for Bloodlines' sewers. It would have been nice if you could talk to the city's officials and have them either flood the sewers temporarily thus washing away the flesh monsters or have them send some troops to clean up the sewers or asking Hollywood vampires for help giving them something in return.

However, that doesn't mean that I hate games that don't have that by default or that I've ever expected such a feature from Bio in the first place.

I refer you to my above post about Rad Scorpions. No one in that town can deal with thim, they'd already tried. I also highly doubt you could get the more substantial militias in other towns to care.

But if that's not a good enough example, how would you deal with the battles in something like LoTR? What third party would protect Helm's Deep so that Aragorn didn't have to? Or who would dissuade the ring wraiths from attacking towards the beginning on that cliff?


There are just not pacifist solutions to every problem, and to require a completely pacifist path is to put huge limitations on the story.

 

[sInfernal]

So you would argue that in Fallout you should be able to talk the Rad Scorpions into not attacking that village, rather than clearing out their cave?

No, a pacifist character would decline the quest, saying "This line of work is not suitable for me," and perhaps ask for a different job opportunity.

 

[Shagnak]

No, a pacifist character would decline the quest, saying "This line of work is not suitable for me," and perhaps ask for a different job opportunity.

But what if the quest is central to an important/critical part of the plot?
Or do we put that down to bad story design?

Edit: I'm speaking hypothetically

 

[roguefrog]

The correct way of eliminating the Rad Scorpion threat without engaging them directly is setting some TNT explosives at the entrance of the cave to seal it shut. :D

 

[Avin]

sign me in for the 100% non violent path too.

if there's a situation in game where you can't avoid fight that's why developers wanted. period.

it's the old discussion: YOU CAN'T AVOID FIGHT TROLLS THAT HAVE AMBUSHED YOU IN THE CAVE!!!
oh, yeah, but you should be able to know beforehand that the cave path from A to B has trolls and use the C to B way.

 

[Volourn]

"it's the old discussion: YOU CAN'T AVOID FIGHT TROLLS THAT HAVE AMBUSHED YOU IN THE CAVE!!!
oh, yeah, but you should be able to know beforehand that the cave path from A to B has trolls and use the C to B way."

That's right! Let's BABYSIT the player.

 

[Trash]

And what if there is no other way? Many different solutions to quests are cool, but sometimes some quests should be for one char type. Only makes it more fun to replay a game with a different char and find new shit.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah. More than one way to kill the enemy.

I kid. I kid. But seriously, Nox was one of the best games that allowed you a variety of ways to dispatch your opponents depending on your class. I'd like to see more games with varied killing styles, as opposed to 'sword vs axe'.

 

[NeverwinterKnight]

i agree with gaider about how it should make sense to have a situation where non-violence is an option, and not just an option every single time.

thats not to say that im not a fan of "alternate possible choices" to solve things. but that it should make sense in the confines of the story and not just because it would be the kewl thing to do.

think about real life situations. sure you could just walk away or try to talk your way out of a confrontation with some knife wielding thug that approaches you on the sidewalk. but what if he wont listen to reason? what if hes a faster runner than you and catches you? there are situations where its impossible not to fight, not because of your inclinations, but because of the other persons. same can be said for games. even if your character is non-violent by nature and wants to avoid conflict, whos to say the person youre in a conflict with will listen to reason?

 

[Shinan]

I have yet to play a single CRPG where combat was the FUN part of the game (Yeah even the Fallout battle system sucked in my opinion. I haven't played more than a demo of ToEE but it didn't make much of an impression on me either. But I also hate DnD PNP combat). Except maybe for those "so-called-RPGs" that had nothing but combat.

I understand the problem though. You can't talk yourself out of every situation and since its a CRPG you can't just say "Nah, I won't save the world. Instead I'll go and grow crops over in that valley with a couple of my friends. Maybe do some merchant business on the side." Since that would not make the game go forward at all.

Not to forget it's EPIC.

I don't really like epic now do I? 8^)

 

[Vault Dweller]

I refer you to my above post about Rad Scorpions. No one in that town can deal with thim, they'd already tried. I also highly doubt you could get the more substantial militias in other towns to care.

But if that's not a good enough example, how would you deal with the battles in something like LoTR? What third party would protect Helm's Deep so that Aragorn didn't have to? Or who would dissuade the ring wraiths from attacking towards the beginning on that cliff?

There are just not pacifist solutions to every problem, and to require a completely pacifist path is to put huge limitations on the story.

2 words: game design. When you design a game, you design situations with multiple solutions in mind. It's as easy to design a situation that could be solved only in one very specific way (sneaking, fighting, or talking) as to design a situation that would allow you to use all 3 and more. That's how I design my game anyway.

LotR is a book, so in its direct adaptation that would be an adventure game. If it was made into a true RPG some things would have to be removed/added to create some choices and consequences. As for the battles, Aragorn didn't and couldn't defend Helm's Deep all by his heroic self, so a player who doesn't feel like fighting could do something else like direct troops, keep the morale up, help with the battle plan (KOTOR 2 style), etc

But what if the quest is central to an important/critical part of the plot? Or do we put that down to bad story design?

Yep

And what if there is no other way? Many different solutions to quests are cool, but sometimes some quests should be for one char type. Only makes it more fun to replay a game with a different char and find new shit.

I'd say keep class/skill specific stuff in side quests.

 

[Trash]

I'd say keep class/skill specific stuff in side quests.

I do believe in different solutions to a certain quest, but it shoudln't become too far fetched. Hmm, why not make some wildly different paths in the same direction? Something like the different starting area's in Toee only happening because of stats/class in the game? A combat oriented player might kill a cavetroll to obtain something, the diplomat does a quest in a town and fids the info/item, the thief gets a job that points him in the direction. Etc ,etc. Completely unfeasible because it will be a shitload of work for a developer, but it would be nice. :wink:

 

[Greatatlantic]

Has anyone else here tried to beat Neverwinter Nights as a Rogue? Have you? Well, have you!? I gave up in the second chapter. Sure, I could pick locks and traps and do extra damage with backstab. However, when the game requires you to fight a hoarde of undead monsters the class became useless for me.

I think an Interview I read with Leon put it best, there should be some quests that require specific skills to do. Yet, there should never be any one set of skills that can allow you to do all the quests. Sometimes, like clearing out a cave of Radscorpians, combat should be the most obvious and perhaps only answer. However, Bioware games (from NWN to KotOR) are really just dungeon crawlers where the heart of the gameplay is go from A to B and fight lots of waves of usually low level enemies.

To use a Fallout example, the game trumpeted three ways to play... a combat guy, a stealth guy, or a lawyer. While clearly combat was involved no matter how you played, stealth and lawyer remained viable classes. Now, in Deus Ex there were really only two ways to play: Fight or sneak past (with all sorts of midlevels). Yet, both were usually viable. By sneaking past standard grunts, a character was more likely to have valuable ammo and health packs for taking on unavoidable battles. Thus, it evened out. In Arcanum, persuasive characters could get party members to join who could do all the hard fighting themselves, making that path viable, too.

I think the Bioware Spokeman is coping out. They are taking the easy route of using battles for filler content instead of adding... well, content. They are in a very secure position right now to push the envelopes of the genre, yet they seem only able to churn out the same dreck that went out of style with Fallout.

 

[Sol Invictus]

All of those fucking ventilation shafts in Deus Ex seemed out of place. You'd think that terrorists who took over a building would know how to seal their perimeter, or at least put some locks on the vents..