Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview Dishonored Interview with Raf Colantonio and Harvey Smith at Gamasutra

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Tags: Arkane Studios; Bethesda Softworks; Dishonored

Gamasutra offers a huge 5-page interview with Arkane's Raf Colantonio and Harvey Smith, focusing on Dishonored, some of the design principles and procedures they adhere to, and how they came together out of a shared love of "very immersive first-person games with mixture of action elements, role-playing elements, stealth as a component wherever possible [and] emergent situations instead of everything hand-scripted," as Smith puts it. Have a few tidbits:

You alluded earlier to the fact that you can complete the game without actually participating in violence, which is interesting, but still the worldview -- the fact that you're an assassin and the fact that your main metaphor for interacting with the world is through conflict... Do you see a point where games can get away from that? Is that interesting to you?

RC: I think, in our case, what matters is really the possibilities and choices that we give to the player. Play style has always been something that we really want for the player. Why we expect people to stealth kill... We also like the fact that you can avoid that.

Initially, we just did it because we had passion, and we believe that only a very, very small percentage of players would do that. Then it kind of became bigger than we thought as we started to talk about it and to add to the game: you actually can avoid killing people and can finish the game without killing people. Yes, it's true, and it's part of our values. But also the fact that you could not kill them gives more meaning to the times you do; it was a choice between killing or not. Yes, it is important.

As to the point of it's possible to have a game system where you do not kill people, of course Portal is a good example of that. But, for sure, for a game in the kind of genre we're in, I think removing the choice from killing would be a problem. A lot of people, they want to have that choice.

Going back to the question of violence -- and, trust me, I'm not against the idea of having conflict in games -- I'm curious about why so many games are centered around it. There are reasons I can think about: for one thing, audience expectations, which you touched on, too. The built-in audience for games -- which we are. As well as creators, you just talked about the games that inspired you -- it's what you expect to be doing. It's what the audience is looking for, right?

HS: I think it's much deeper than that. I think it's poker or chess. Almost part of the definition of games at a formal level involves artificial conflict. Games are one of the ways that people, throughout thousands of years, have engaged in some sort of mock conflict in a safe environment. Violence and conflict are a huge part of the world. When you entangle with them in real life, the consequences are usually severe.

So people, I think, have devised this thing called "game" as a way of exploring conflict and exploring their relationships with conflict in a completely safe, abstract way. That's a neat topic that we don't sit around thinking about all the time, of course. But if you watch lion cubs bite each other and roll around on the ground, they're not trying to kill each other; they're engaged in some sort of conflict-based play. That's the same thing I think we're doing.

We all find conflict fascinating. If you're playing poker with your friends, someone crushes the life out of everyone else. It's absolute. There's not even a soft way to lose poker; you are crushed out of existence. So I don't think it's endemic to video games, or exclusive to video games.

In the sense that you feel like there's enough creativity and choice that you don't feel like there's anything to complain about, in other words?

HS: No, that's not my words. I think it's always worth disrupting things creatively, and complaining, and pushing harder, which is what Raf and I do half the time. We are not content with games where you march down a linear bridge and shoot a monster and don't have any choice but that and to exit. We like multiple solutions, multiple stylistic approaches, and multiple moral compasses in a game. We definitely are agitators in that sense; we want more out of games -- more atmosphere, more agency.

What I'm trying to say is that there's a natural ecology of things; it's impossible that everything is that -- you cannot have a 100 percent everything is better than everything.

RC: And also the advancement in creativity cannot be achieved at every game like it used to be, at the beginning of the medium. We are at the stage where, right now, it's baby steps, and everybody is aware. Everybody can't come up with something totally different in every way. Even the most creative game that you can think of right now probably can be composed of two games that are directly influential to it.

Something you talked about in the presentation was that you built systems of gameplay that interacted in certain ways to allow for emergent gameplay but then, as you saw different strategies emerge, you sort of tweaked the design to take advantage of some of the scenarios you saw emerging. It's a big question, but how does that work? [...]

RC: The way we do it is we work by layers, first of all. It's a very, very vague question because, at the end of the day, it's the heart of the nature of our game. It comes from some approaches at every level. It's true for the mechanics; it's true for the level design itself, and therefore the mission design; it's true for the architecture.

So, if we talk about the level design/architecture/mission design, we come up with a little story, and an objective, whatever the objective is -- reach this place or kill that guy. "Eliminate that guy" would be more accurate, because there are multiple ways to do it.

Then, we design the environment around it. We have a rough idea of the main path that we have in mind, and this main path might be based some of the powers that we have -- some of the mechanics. We know that there might be a double jump; we know that there's a blink [teleport]; we know that the player might have the tools to possess a rat and therefore go this way or that way.

That is the first draft, and then we let it organically evolve a little bit. We let the architects do their stuff, and they add some alternate paths. Of course, because nothing is scripted so much, we put the AI in there, and all the systems are simulated, so they interact with each other; they cross each other.

We let it live for awhile, and then we see naturally some stuff emerging. Even ourselves, before it goes to the players, in fact, the devs in-house will start finding some way to do things -- which are shortcuts, which are more fun. Then, if it's a problem, we fix it. If it's, in fact, something that we think has potential, then we encourage it and expand on it. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Then come the real testers, and they might find their own other stuff. Then we add some more mechanics later in the process, and not only this new mechanic offers new possibilities, but new bugs. At this point, you keep doing this; this is why it takes so long to make the game. Even though each level designer doesn't have that many areas to work on, they work on them for a long time -- for a long time -- and maintain them in every aspect.​

Sounds good, but will the game live up to the talk? After all, very few games do. We'll wait and see.
 

toro

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
14,694
Each time I read about Dishonored, it's like having a déjà-vu and I simply cannot get over the fact that you can actually *possess* a Fish or a Rat. The word retarded is clearly overused, but the basic idea of possessing animals is so fucking stupid. I don't know why, but this shit just enrages me.

SS2/DX abilities were based at least partially on some real life expectations, but they never went full retard.

Bioshock went partially retard with bees, cyclone strap, hypnotize and others. But no possession shit.

But Dishonored ... what the fuck!? The idea is so bad, not even lousy sf writers are using. Or are they?
 

Infinitron

I post news
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
99,223
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Each time I read about Dishonored, it's like having a déjà-vu and I simply cannot get over the fact that you can actually *possess* a Fish or a Rat. The word retarded is clearly overused, but the basic idea of possessing animals is so fucking stupid. I don't know why, but this shit just enrages me.

inb4 Game of Thrones Song of Ice and Fire
 

toro

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
14,694
Each time I read about Dishonored, it's like having a déjà-vu and I simply cannot get over the fact that you can actually *possess* a Fish or a Rat. The word retarded is clearly overused, but the basic idea of possessing animals is so fucking stupid. I don't know why, but this shit just enrages me.

inb4 Game of Thrones Song of Ice and Fire

There is a huge difference between Game of Thrones/other stories and Dishonored. In most cases the possessed did not serve as a vessel for the body/armor/weapons of the entity doing the possession.

They did not break this rule neither in games like Omikron and Messiah. And is true that this is fantasy after all, but I honestly find it hard to believe that a Fish could carry a sword. Maybe in Disneyland.

I think they went full retard with this idea and now they have no choice but to praise it.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Wait, wasn't Harvey Smith the guy who fucked up DEx2 when he tried to do it without Spector having a direct hand in things?

Also, re: possession of animals and using weapons at the same time - depends on the physical capabilities of the animal:

bears_with_guns.jpg

2255%20-%20animals%20bear%20cavalry%20dog%20nazi.jpg

Bear+Cavalry_001.jpg

87890ae4-eafc-44f2-8c3c-d649e24adb35.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Mind you, on the 'pluck crossbow bolts out of the air' idea - not particularly excited about that for this game, but I can't have been the only one thinking that the ability to catch arrows/bolts would have been an awesome implementation of celerity when playing Bloodlines.
 

Tramboi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
1,229
Location
Paris by night
Can you elaborate?


If you think a guy plugging himself on a public terminal and hacking a computer system is not retarded, I certainly can stomach animal possession.
A world where weapons haven't evolved more than throwing high velocity inert projectiles through people to make holes (aka bullets) but the humans using it have been tweaked is quite absurd, too.
Why would you increase your sight and your reflexes though intrusive and risky surgery when you probably can have an über-weapon doing all this and much more for a fraction of the price? The security bots in Deus Ex are dumber than the ones that are RnDed in the military industry, yet cybernetics is the über-technology in a cyberpunk universe.
Sorry, retarded all the way.

Yet I don't care, I can suspend my disbelief well enough when playing or reading a novel. Which will allow me to possess animals in Dishonored without a second thought.
 

toro

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
14,694
Can you elaborate?
If you think a guy plugging himself on a public terminal and hacking a computer system is not retarded, I certainly can stomach animal possession.
I beg to differ. We are at the beginning in this field, however neural interfaces are no longer science fiction. When on the other hand, animal possession is ... I don't know. Crap!?

A world where weapons haven't evolved more than throwing high velocity inert projectiles through people to make holes (aka bullets) but the humans using it have been tweaked is quite absurd, too.
Whatever. This is another topic.

Why would you increase your sight and your reflexes though intrusive and risky surgery when you probably can have an über-weapon doing all this and much more for a fraction of the price? The security bots in Deus Ex are dumber than the ones that are RnDed in the military industry, yet cybernetics is the über-technology in a cyberpunk universe. Sorry, retarded all the way.

People don't need a reason to modify their bodies. In the world we are living today, they are doing it just because they can. It's trendy, it's like getting a new iPhone.
Look at sites like this. They don't give a shit about reason or ethics. If they can improve their sight and reflexes, they will do it without a second thought. Sex/Army/Money. You might not like it, but this is no retarded.
As for the fact that the bots in Deux Ex are retarded ... hmmm... is just a game implementation. It doesn't prove anything. I hope you are not stating otherwise.

Yet I don't care, I can suspend my disbelief well enough when playing or reading a novel. Which will allow me to possess animals in Dishonored without a second thought.
Good for you. I guess if you are able to suspend disbelief in reality, you can basically do it for anything :P
 

Tramboi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
1,229
Location
Paris by night
If you think a guy plugging himself on a public terminal and hacking a computer system is not retarded, I certainly can stomach animal possession.
I beg to differ. We are at the beginning in this field, however neural interfaces are no longer science fiction. When on the other hand, animal possession is ... I don't know. Crap!?
A guy wandering on the field while hacking computers in 5 minutes without being detected is totally irrealistic. It's gamey.

A world where weapons haven't evolved more than throwing high velocity inert projectiles through people to make holes (aka bullets) but the humans using it have been tweaked is quite absurd, too.
Whatever. This is another topic.
It isn't : why would society (and the military) invest so much money and rnd in cybernetics and not in weaponry, which is easier, cheaper and wouldn't raise as much ethics concerns?

Why would you increase your sight and your reflexes though intrusive and risky surgery when you probably can have an über-weapon doing all this and much more for a fraction of the price? The security bots in Deus Ex are dumber than the ones that are RnDed in the military industry, yet cybernetics is the über-technology in a cyberpunk universe. Sorry, retarded all the way.

People don't need a reason to modify their bodies. In the world we are living today, they are doing it just because they can. It's trendy, it's like getting a new iPhone.
Look at sites like this. They don't give a shit about reason or ethics. If they can improve their sight and reflexes, they will do it without a second thought. Sex/Army/Money. You might not like it, but this is no retarded.
As for the fact that the bots in Deux Ex are retarded ... hmmm... is just a game implementation. It doesn't prove anything. I hope you are not stating otherwise.
I agree with the fashion part of body modification (been watching bme for more than 10 years to check on tattoos :) ).
The bots in Deus Ex are designed to look and feel dumb and lo-tech. They could have used the same AI than for characters to hint than security bots are as efficient as human guards.
We're already replacing fighter aircrafts by drones when possible for several reasons, and we are far from being able to fine-tune our pilots (except by giving them drugs but no cybernetics there).

Anyway, we disagree it seems :)
 

toro

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
14,694
If you think a guy plugging himself on a public terminal and hacking a computer system is not retarded, I certainly can stomach animal possession.
I beg to differ. We are at the beginning in this field, however neural interfaces are no longer science fiction. When on the other hand, animal possession is ... I don't know. Crap!?
A guy wandering on the field while hacking computers in 5 minutes without being detected is totally irrealistic. It's gamey.

Hacking is another topic. And I agree, most movies and games are shit when they try to depict hacking.
Anyway, the discussion started from my statement that DX/SS were based on some realistic expectations where the possession from Dishonored is based on ... whatever. For me, it's simply too much. I will probably never use it.

A world where weapons haven't evolved more than throwing high velocity inert projectiles through people to make holes (aka bullets) but the humans using it have been tweaked is quite absurd, too.
Whatever. This is another topic.
It isn't : why would society (and the military) invest so much money and rnd in cybernetics and not in weaponry, which is easier, cheaper and wouldn't raise as much ethics concerns?

To decrease the recovery time for wounded soldiers, to have soldier ready to fight in any environment. Make war a proper business. After H-bomb it no longer matters who has the biggest weapon.

Anyway, we disagree it seems :)

At least we did not start calling each-other retards. There should be an achievement for this :P
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom