Game News Dragon Age 2 Announced

[Shannow]

I think this is where the C&C fags get into trouble because thanks to their worship of a retarded buzzword...

Buzzwords are words like extreme, epic, next-generation, etc. They describe nothing and mean nothing. Reading that game X is epic tells you absolutely nothing.

Choices & consequences, much like turn-based or isometric, refers to a very specific design that can not be interpreted in different ways. A game is either turn-based or not; it either has choices (or multiple quests solutions) or not; the gameworld either reacts to those choices or not.

Of course those buzzwords tell you something, describe something. It's just very vague and quite useless information:
Epic = long, heroic, glorious story
Next-generation = better graphics, streamlined gameplay, more cinematic, more action
Extreme = certain actions are extreme like those of Jack Bauer or other action heroes.

And of course C&C can be interpreted in various ways. You don't browse here much anymore but we have people who see choice of character, choice of character development, choice of equipment, choice of combat tactics and the ensuing concequences as C&C. Others see it as multiple quest solutions, others as mutually exclusive dialogue paths. And others as a mix of all.
C&C has become exactly the same kind of buzzword as all those others. It's thrown in because it's deemed to attract customers. It's not clearly defined. It's no measure of quality. It's vague and mostly useless.
A dev can speak of "C&C" and mean that there nearly always are "good, neutral, evil" dialogue options with a choice of fighting the red guys or the green guys in the end and slightly different ending slides in his game while you read "C&C" and expect multiple quest solutions and strong world reactivity to your deeds/class/race/etc...

 

[Phelot]

I agree with Shannow. C&C really has become a buzzword. The general gaming population has picked up on it being a good thing and so many new games are touting some form of it. Which is fine I guess, except now they are adding it as a feature to games instead of just pretending it's in the game. And the way they add it is just stupid and feels forced like the two factions in The Witcher.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

You're really confusing multiple quest solutions with multiple quest endings. A glowing example of the former is Fallout where every quest was intended, however imperfectly, to have the option of being able to complete it via stealth, combat, or diplomacy.

Let's not get carried away there.

The Hub's (the biggest town) quests:

- Dispose of Jain
- Dispose of merchant
- Find the missing caravans
- Steal the necklace

Please indicate the multiple ways to get it done, especially via dialogues, and the consequences and other effect on the gameplay that these quests surely come with. For example, Loxley specifically asks you to avoid killing Hightower. What happens if you show your murderous nature and kill him? Or if you already killed him prior to talking to Loxley?

What are the consequences of doing Kane's bidding vs taking him out? Surely the game acknowledges your choice? No? What do you mean no? How can such a thing be possible? It's the holy Fallout we're talking about, a game where every - every fucking quest has multiple ways of completing it and far reaching consequences.

Dragon Age's quest variations consist overwhelmingly of multiple quest endings.

Nope. Feel free to read my DA quest design article for instant enlightenment.

I think this is where the C&C fags get into trouble because thanks to their worship of a retarded buzzword...

Buzzwords are words like extreme, epic, next-generation, etc. They describe nothing and mean nothing. Reading that game X is epic tells you absolutely nothing.

Choices & consequences, much like turn-based or isometric, refers to a very specific design that can not be interpreted in different ways. A game is either turn-based or not; it either has choices (or multiple quests solutions) or not; the gameworld either reacts to those choices or not.

We can talk about consequences being rare and/or weak, but in this case we shouldn't display double standards and pretend that everything in Fallout was glorious and had far reaching consequences. In fact most things you did in Fallout affected nothing but the endgame narrative, kind of like the much hated Alpha Protocol's choices.

I'm not going to reply to all of it, mainly because I don't care, but let's be honest about FO for a second. While some of the quests were not super-duper-open-ended, for the most part, for most quests, you are given numerous ways to solve them. The Raider camp, how to infiltrate the Cathedral, the Castle, Necropolis, hell, I even think there were two ways to deal with the radscorpions in the cave at shady sands. It would have been better if each quest had the same multiple solutions, but I'm more than happy with what they left us.

DA, though... I mean, there are a few incidents where you can use the dialogue skill (like freeing that big mother fucker). It seems the C&C is pretty much regulated to "This happens at point B because you went to point A first, but if you go to point A first, this will happen instead". That's all fine and good, but it doesn't really change the nature over each place you go. Two playthroughs of DA play pretty much exactly the same (outside of the origins), which is a pretty good way of telling if there is C&C.

 

[Fomorian]

Let's not get carried away there.

The Hub's (the biggest town) quests:

- Dispose of Jain
- Dispose of merchant
- Find the missing caravans
- Steal the necklace

Please indicate the multiple ways to get it done, especially via dialogues, and the consequences and other effect on the gameplay that these quests surely come with. For example, Loxley specifically asks you to avoid killing Hightower. What happens if you show your murderous nature and kill him? Or if you already killed him prior to talking to Loxley? What are the consequences of doing Kane's bidding vs taking him out? Surely the game acknowledges your choice? No? What do you mean no? How can such a thing be possible? It's the holy Fallout we're talking about, a game where every - every fucking quest has multiple ways of completing it and far reaching consequences.

I added the however imperfectly bit for a reason but most of those can definitely be solved in multiple ways. For the first two a thief could sneak in, assassinate both via planting explosives onto them and sneak out. Combat characters can go in guns blazing and I know it's possible to talk your way in to see Hightower although I'm not sure what that would achieve beyond putting you in a different position for the inevitable fight. Never tried to sneak through the Deathclaw cave to retrieve the holodisk from the mutant but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.

As for the rest of this spiel you're the one who cares about C&C in your RPGs bro not me. The fact that Loxley doesn't react if you kill Hightower and there are no far-reaching consequences for murdering the most powerful crime lord in the Core Region doesn't matter to me, doesn't detract from Fallout's awesomeness and isn't germane to the discussion.

Dragon Age has very few quests with multiple solutions, Fallout has many.

Nope. Feel free to read my DA quest design article for instant enlightenment.

Yup. With few and invariably minor exceptions all quests in DA can only be solved via combat. You can often choose to have less combat or more combat, but combat is invariably the sole solution. This isn't necessarily problematic (although it is because DA combat sucks) since DA doesn't have diplomatic or stealthy characters just different kinds of fighters but don't claim it has multiple quest solutions when it doesn't.

EDIT: To be fair there are quests in Dragon Age where combat is not involved at all but these still don't have multiple solutions their sole solution just doesn't involve combat.

Buzzwords are words like extreme, epic, next-generation, etc. They describe nothing and mean nothing. Reading that game X is epic tells you absolutely nothing.

Choices & consequences, much like turn-based or isometric, refers to a very specific design that can not be interpreted in different ways. A game is either turn-based or not; it either has choices (or multiple quests solutions) or not; the gameworld either reacts to those choices or not.

To be honest then I would very much appreciate a definition since you coined the term and there is a lot of dispute on the Codex on what C&C actually entails.

We can talk about consequences being rare and/or weak, but in this case we shouldn't display double standards and pretend that everything in Fallout was glorious and had far reaching consequences. In fact most things you did in Fallout affected nothing but the endgame narrative, kind of like the much hated Alpha Protocol's choices.

Again I don't really care about C&C. I don't think Fallout had all that much of it and frankly I think Dragon Age had a ton of it as you point out in your review. I was talking only about multiple quest solutions which Fallout possesses in abundance and Dragon Age does not.

 

[GarfunkeL]

It seems that the argument mostly boils down to you thinking that Bioware hype is to be trusted and that DA2 will improve upon DAO in pretty much every aspect while I wholly disagree with you. Clear enough. We'll see in 2011 which one of was right. Please stick around for that

Wait a minute. Choose your own adventure books are written by one author. With one person they can support that much C&C. What the fuck is your excuse bioware!!!

He's kinda right on that point, Garf. The target public is used to replaying these games a thousand times, and since it's the only variation they'll get between playthroughs, they expect it, so the cost-benefit is much better. Plus I don't think it's a simple matter of more budget and people, you can't just throw a hundred guys at it and hope theyll work as a team.

Yeah, "visual novel" crowd in Japland expect that stuff which is why they build it in. But saying that the larger scope of WRPGs makes that stuff impossible is a cop-out. Let's use this image as a guide here:

(Thanks GenmaTheDestroyer, btw!)

Have executive designer lay out a basic plot and theme of the game. He/she can decide things like the rough amount of branching and number of different endings etc. After that he/she can delegate different segments of the chart to different teams. You have there clearly different parts of the story/plot, after certain segments, that independent teams could work on. Have the executive dev oversee them to ensure that continuity is maintained.

You would probably need more designers and writers but shit, US Colleges pump out English Lit majors all the time. I think its possible, japs have shown us on smaller scale that it is possible - so Bioware isn't doing it because?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Of course those buzzwords tell you something, describe something. It's just very vague and quite useless information:
Epic = long, heroic, glorious story

Subjective. According to the Codex archive, epic was used in 292 reviews, previews, and interviews.

"The fate of the King lies in your hand in The Witcher II: Assassins of Kings.
Tom Gop, Senior Producer, gives details on the sequel where players must protect the King from assassinations, epic battles, evil wizards and a slew of new characters."
...
games like Dragon Age show how classic gaming and modern gaming can work together to produce a tremendous game that is satisfying to folks raised on PC classics as well as those who are only familiar with controllers. And THAT is an epic achievement!
...
RPS: So let’s talk about the story: what’s going on in The Witcher 2?

Well, I must assume you have played The Witcher 1? But anyway at the end of that you will have noticed that there is something going on. ... You start at the castle of a female baron, and it’s a prologue to the game. We have shown some stuff from act one, but something has happened before that in the prologue. You’ve found stuff out, you’ve met knew people. It’s going to be epic, a boom!
...
Dungeon Lords is touted as a "new breed of epic fantasy RPG".

Etc. The word is meaningless now. Anything you liked can be described as epic.

Next-generation = better graphics, streamlined gameplay, more cinematic, more action

Than what? Than a game I played 3 years ago? Last Christmas? Last week? It used to mean a very specific thing - games developed for the next generation of consoles. Now it's meaningless.

Extreme = certain actions are extreme like those of Jack Bauer or other action heroes.

Yet it's often used to describe "awsum gaemplay", usually combat.

And of course C&C can be interpreted in various ways. You don't browse here much anymore but we have people who see choice of character, choice of character development, choice of equipment, choice of combat tactics ...

Which is stupid because these choices are present in most or every game. Every game offers a choice of equipment. Thus including it in the C&C definition makes it meaningless. Kind of like saying that RPG is a game where you play a role.

Others see it as multiple quest solutions, others as mutually exclusive dialogue paths.

Both are acceptable, imo.

A dev can speak of "C&C" and mean that there nearly always are "good, neutral, evil" dialogue options with a choice of fighting the red guys or the green guys in the end and slightly different ending slides in his game while you read "C&C" and expect multiple quest solutions and strong world reactivity to your deeds/class/race/etc...

Developers can claim a lot of things, which should be taken with a grain or two of salt. In case of AP it was very clear from the examples (kill the weapon dealer or let him go!), that the game will have very weak consequences and mostly the same way of doing things, a-la Deus Ex. In other words, we don't consider KOTOR turn-based just because many reviewers claimed it was so, do we?

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

The heat is on!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I added the however imperfectly bit for a reason but most of those can definitely be solved in multiple ways. For the first two a thief could sneak in, assassinate both via planting explosives onto them and sneak out.

Hardly an example of multiple quest solutions. Btw, haven't you claimed that every quest can be solved with diplomacy?

As for the rest of this spiel you're the one who cares about C&C in your RPGs bro not me.

And? What's your point and how is it relevant to claims *you* have made?

The fact that Loxley doesn't react if you kill Hightower and there are no far-reaching consequences for murdering the most powerful crime lord in the Core Region doesn't matter to me, doesn't detract from Fallout's awesomeness...

Obviously, since you believe that every quest can be solved in multiple ways, including diplomacy.

Dragon Age has very few quests with multiple solutions, Fallout has many.

Switched to ambiguous statements?

Yup. With few and invariably minor exceptions all quests in DA can only be solved via combat. You can often choose to have less combat or more combat, but combat is invariably the sole solution. This isn't necessarily problematic (although it is because DA combat sucks) since DA doesn't have diplomatic or stealthy characters just different kinds of fighters but don't claim it has multiple quest solutions when it doesn't.

So, shooting a guy in the face or blowing him up with a dynamite stick is a fine example of multiple quest solutions, but choosing whether to kill the boy or save him, and if save him, how to get to the demon, and when you reach the demon, whether to kill her, intimidate and force to leave, or make a deal dooming the boy (two diplomacy options) can't be considered as multiple quest solutions? Seriously?

To be honest then I would very much appreciate a definition since you coined the term and there is a lot of dispute on the Codex on what C&C actually entails.

Choices - Multiple ways to solve quests and game objectives.
Consequences - gameplay content unlocked or removed by your choices. See the MotB contest for examples.

Again I don't really care about C&C. I don't think Fallout had all that much of it and frankly I think Dragon Age had a ton of it as you point out in your review. I was talking only about multiple quest solutions which Fallout possesses in abundance and Dragon Age does not.

See above.

 

[Mangoose]

So, shooting a guy in the face or blowing him up with a dynamite stick is a fine example of multiple quest solutions, but choosing whether to kill the boy or save him, and if save him, how to get to the demon, and when you reach the demon, whether to kill her, intimidate and force to leave, or make a deal dooming the boy (two diplomacy options) can't be considered as multiple quest solutions? Seriously?

What he means is that gameplay-wise, the Fallout example allows different strategies and uses of different character builds to accomplish a task. Whereas in the Dragon Age example you do have specific and significant quest choices (i.e. your definition of C&C), but the brunt of the gameplay, or the path that you take, still dictates mandatory combat.

I guess semantically, "multiple quest solutions" isn't the best way to describe the Fallout example. Perhaps "multiple gameplay paths" would be more proper.

 

[Fomorian]

[Hardly an example of multiple quest solutions. Btw, haven't you claimed that every quest can be solved with diplomacy?

It's hardly an example of multiple quest solutions to complete a quest in two totally different ways linked only by the completion of the objective? I never claimed any such thing I said "A glowing example of the former is Fallout where every quest was intended, however imperfectly, to have the option of being able to complete it via stealth, combat, or diplomacy." Note the use of the words intended and however imperfectly.

And? What's your point and how is it relevant to claims *you* have made?

It's not which is why I was unclear why you'd thrown it in the first place.

Obviously, since you believe that every quest can be solved in multiple ways, including diplomacy.

No I said every quest was intended to be solved in multiple ways. Reading is teh hard eh?

Switched to ambiguous statements?

Only if by ambiguous statements you mean ambiguous quantities. I don't really have a precise count.

So, shooting a guy in the face or blowing him up with a dynamite stick is a fine example of multiple quest solutions, but choosing whether to kill the boy or save him, and if save him, how to get to the demon, and when you reach the demon, whether to kill her, intimidate and force to leave, or make a deal dooming the boy (two diplomacy options) can't be considered as multiple quest solutions? Seriously?

Poor attempt to conflate stealthy assassination with an open assault there. If the only difference in killing Hightower was your choice of weapon then it wouldn't have multiple quest solutions but it isn't so stop pretending it is.

Let's go through the Dragon Age example the way it really plays out shall we? Kill the boy or save him?=Short combat sequence or straight to Fade with blood magic or go to the Mages? If Mages haven't already been dealt with that will be a long combat sequence. How to get to the demon=once a character is in the Fade go through a totally linear path with a number of unavoidable combat sequences. Once you reach the Demon you can go through another fight, skip the fight by being evil or skip the fight via intimidation. That is not multiple quest solutions that is one quest solution with some shortcuts and different endings.

Choices - Multiple ways to solve quests and game objectives.
Consequences - gameplay content unlocked or removed by your choices. See the MotB contest for examples.

What makes C&C unique or so important to RPGs then? Couldn't any genre possess C&C?

See above.

So because C&C encompasses multiple quest solutions multiple quest solutions must always be accompanied by consequences or else they are poor multiple quest solutions? What?

 

[Fomorian]

So, shooting a guy in the face or blowing him up with a dynamite stick is a fine example of multiple quest solutions, but choosing whether to kill the boy or save him, and if save him, how to get to the demon, and when you reach the demon, whether to kill her, intimidate and force to leave, or make a deal dooming the boy (two diplomacy options) can't be considered as multiple quest solutions? Seriously?

What he means is that gameplay-wise, the Fallout example allows different strategies and uses of different character builds to accomplish a task. Whereas in the Dragon Age example you do have specific and significant quest choices (i.e. your definition of C&C), but the brunt of the gameplay, or the path that you take, still dictates mandatory combat.

I guess semantically, "multiple quest solutions" isn't the best way to describe the Fallout example. Perhaps "multiple gameplay paths" would be more proper.

No multiple quest solutions is a perfectly fine way to describe the Fallout example. The quest is to kill Hightower. You can kill Hightower either by a direct assault on his compound or stealthily assassinating him. You have multiple solutions to the quest.

EDIT: Unless you're thinking that multiple quest solutions would imply there's some way to complete the quest other than killing Hightower. Which is pretty fair. Sorry about that ignore the I had going on before.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Really? That's your argument.

Assuming this game plays like most Japanese dating sims (erotic or otherwise) then the only resources they used were drawings and some written dialog. The game also probably isn't very long.

If they could only manage a linear story with that they would have to suck pretty mightily.

When RPG's only have to worry about those aspects and not attempt the game length most fans seem to demand from RPGs is the day that will be the norm.


I bet the combat system in that game sucked anyway.

Now that I think about it "Sengoku Rance" is longer then each of the ME games... and with far better combat

Not to mention better storyline, better branching plot, 100s more recruitable characters (all optional), no hand holding, a world that progresses based on time instead of the player's actions, etc etc.

Holding anything up to the standards of Sengoku Rance is quite unfair.

 

[Mangoose]

So, shooting a guy in the face or blowing him up with a dynamite stick is a fine example of multiple quest solutions, but choosing whether to kill the boy or save him, and if save him, how to get to the demon, and when you reach the demon, whether to kill her, intimidate and force to leave, or make a deal dooming the boy (two diplomacy options) can't be considered as multiple quest solutions? Seriously?

What he means is that gameplay-wise, the Fallout example allows different strategies and uses of different character builds to accomplish a task. Whereas in the Dragon Age example you do have specific and significant quest choices (i.e. your definition of C&C), but the brunt of the gameplay, or the path that you take, still dictates mandatory combat.

I guess semantically, "multiple quest solutions" isn't the best way to describe the Fallout example. Perhaps "multiple gameplay paths" would be more proper.

No multiple quest solutions is a perfectly fine way to describe the Fallout example. The quest is to kill Hightower. You can kill Hightower either by a direct assault on his compound or stealthily assassinating him. You have multiple solutions to the quest.

EDIT: Unless you're thinking that multiple quest solutions would imply there's some way to complete the quest other than killing Hightower. Which is pretty fair. Sorry about that ignore the I had going on before.

Well I mean that both the FO and the DA example have varying degrees of multiple quest solutions. However, the difference that the FO example provides is that there are also multiple gameplay paths, in that sneaking in and going rambo are going to provide vastly different experiences. Whereas in DA, the path or the "journey" will for a large part (note that I'm not saying always) be the same, until you reach the scripted choices.

 

[Volourn]

"in that sneaking in and going rambo are going to provide vastly different experiences."

Bullshit.

 

[Mangoose]

"in that sneaking in and going rambo are going to provide vastly different experiences."

Bullshit.

Given that sneaking depends on your Sneak skill, in conjunction with simply avoiding enemies as much as possible. And going rambo means depending on a specific Weapon skill and actually activating combat mode. Yes. Different experiences.

 

[Volourn]

The level of 'difference' is neglible. You got to the same areas, you encounter the same creatures, you talk with the same peons, same 'ol, same 'ol. This is why I can play a game like FO and a game like BG the same amount of times (3) despite the fact that FO is way ahead in terms of actual C&C. The game experience - despite any 'difference' is basically the same. It doesn't change fundamentally enough.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"in that sneaking in and going rambo are going to provide vastly different experiences."

Bullshit.

Given that sneaking depends on your Sneak skill, in conjunction with simply avoiding enemies as much as possible. And going rambo means depending on a specific Weapon skill and actually activating combat mode. Yes. Different experiences.

In theory? Yes. In Fallout, a game without sneaking mechanics? No. In the context of the quests I've mentioned? Definitely not.

You can either approach Jain and shoot her in the face (9/10 a single shot will kill her) or you can approach Jain, plant a dynamite stick, and move away. Like I said, it's the same shit and hardly an example of praise-worthy design.

I mean, I don't see Alpha Protocol being praised around here because you can shoot your way through the levels or sneak. Why? Because it's the same shit in the game and the objectives are the same.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No multiple quest solutions is a perfectly fine way to describe the Fallout example. The quest is to kill Hightower. You can kill Hightower either by a direct assault on his compound or stealthily assassinating him. You have multiple solutions to the quest.

You forget that you can also use punch him to death, or knife him, or use a rocket launcher on him, or an SMG... You can even kill him by using stimpacks. The possibilities are truly endless.

 

[Vault Dweller]

[Hardly an example of multiple quest solutions. Btw, haven't you claimed that every quest can be solved with diplomacy?

It's hardly an example of multiple quest solutions to complete a quest in two totally different ways linked only by the completion of the objective?

See above (my reply to Mangoose).

No I said every quest was intended to be solved in multiple ways. Reading is teh hard eh?

And Oblivion RAI was intended to be the ultimate role-playing experience. What's your point?

Poor attempt to conflate stealthy assassination with an open assault there. If the only difference in killing Hightower was your choice of weapon then it wouldn't have multiple quest solutions but it isn't so stop pretending it is.

And what's an explosive in this context?

Let's go through the Dragon Age example the way it really plays out shall we? Kill the boy or save him?=Short combat sequence or straight to Fade with blood magic or go to the Mages? If Mages haven't already been dealt with that will be a long combat sequence. How to get to the demon=once a character is in the Fade go through a totally linear path with a number of unavoidable combat sequences. Once you reach the Demon you can go through another fight, skip the fight by being evil or skip the fight via intimidation. That is not multiple quest solutions that is one quest solution with some shortcuts and different endings.

So? Combat filler is the undeniable design flaw, which brings down the overall quality of the game, but it doesn't make the choices meaningless.

What makes C&C unique or so important to RPGs then? Couldn't any genre possess C&C?

Yes. Same goes for stats, levels, and inventory (which does not make Warcraft 3 an RPG).

Choices & consequences are important to RPGs because it's the only genre that truly needs them to create gameplay variations, which is something that shooters and strategy/tactical games achieve in different ways. As for adventure games, they're usually too story-driven and rely on puzzle-solving to need C&C.

So because C&C encompasses multiple quest solutions multiple quest solutions must always be accompanied by consequences or else they are poor multiple quest solutions? What?

Is that what I said?

C&C include multiple quest solutions but multiple quest solutions don't always come with consequences (saving Tandi is a good example of MQS but a poor example of C&C).

Btw, whose alt are you?

 

[darkpatriot]

(Thanks GenmaTheDestroyer, btw!)

Have executive designer lay out a basic plot and theme of the game. He/she can decide things like the rough amount of branching and number of different endings etc. After that he/she can delegate different segments of the chart to different teams. You have there clearly different parts of the story/plot, after certain segments, that independent teams could work on. Have the executive dev oversee them to ensure that continuity is maintained.

You would probably need more designers and writers but shit, US Colleges pump out English Lit majors all the time. I think its possible, japs have shown us on smaller scale that it is possible - so Bioware isn't doing it because?

You are correct in that this conversation is basically played out. I wanted to clarify my point a little further before going back into lurker mode.

Game development (or any collaborative effort) doesn't scale like that. 10 Developers don't equal 10 times the work. and 100 developers definitely doesn't mean 100 times the work. The law of diminishing returns is at play here for a variety of reasons. primarily that more people means more movig parts and more friction. Friction in the form of people miscommunicating with each other, having to make sure they are all on the same sheet of paper, people needed strictly to manage other people. It eventually reaches a point where adding more people will actually slow a project down. The entire point of management in companies is to mitigate this.

Two - The more you increase the scope by adding more subsystems to the game. The more work is needed to make it all function together properly.

Here is a quick abstraction.

If you have only one point in a system there are no Interactions to handle.
# of points # of connections
1 0
2 1
3 3
4 6
5 10
6 15
7 21
8 28
9 36
10 45
ect...

Now it isn't this bad necessarily because not every game subsystem has to interact with every other one in the game.

However both of these together make it so you can't just handle more complex projects by just increasing the number of developers. Game companies ultimatley have limited resources (even if they are gigantic companies like EA/Bioware)

This is why it is fairly easy for those style games to include that kind of branching but if a game of DA2s scope attempted that it would ramp up the number of resources needed a lot. It would probably take several more years and at least 3 times the amount of money to make (and it is already an expensive game to make).

Bioware still has plenty of room for improvement (every game company does) but they are good for what they are. And I'm okay with what they are anyway.

 

[Mangoose]

"in that sneaking in and going rambo are going to provide vastly different experiences."

Bullshit.

Given that sneaking depends on your Sneak skill, in conjunction with simply avoiding enemies as much as possible. And going rambo means depending on a specific Weapon skill and actually activating combat mode. Yes. Different experiences.

In theory? Yes. In Fallout, a game without sneaking mechanics? No. In the context of the quests I've mentioned? Definitely not.

You can either approach Jain and shoot her in the face (9/10 a single shot will kill her) or you can approach Jain, plant a dynamite stick, and move away. Like I said, it's the same shit and hardly an example of praise-worthy design.

I mean, I don't see Alpha Protocol being praised around here because you can shoot your way through the levels or sneak. Why? Because it's the same shit in the game and the objectives are the same.

True, speaking absolutely, Fallout is not the best in this area. However, speaking relatively, in comparison with DA, there is more gameplay variation in Fallout. In FO there are instances where you can use non-combat skills to skip a variety of combat encounters, big or small. In DA this only applies to specific instances, usually important NPC encounters.

So when you say "So? Combat filler is the undeniable design flaw, which brings down the overall quality of the game, but it doesn't make the choices meaningless," no, it doesn't make the choices meaningless, but it does mean you are spending a lot of gameplay time doing the same thing no matter what build or what choices you've made.

And actually in AP I liked how your skill choices affected your gameplay style. It's only not praised because everything else is mediocre, from level design to flavor C&C.

 

[kris]

"You can shoot him with the shotgun, rifle or the handgun, there is a lot of choices how to solve this quest".

 

[Fomorian]

Yes because the only difference between storming Hightower's compound or stealthily murdering him is weapon choice.

 

[Fomorian]

See above (my reply to Mangoose).

Your reply to Mangoose dealt with "different experiences." Just because sneaking in to Hightower's compound isn't a radically different experience from storming it to you doesn't mean there aren't multiple ways to kill him and therefore complete the quest.

And Oblivion RAI was intended to be the ultimate role-playing experience. What's your point?

That I never said every quest in Fallout could be solved via diplomacy or even in multiple ways like you tried to pretend earlier.

And what's an explosive in this context?

So the quest is to kill Hightower and you're complaining there are no multiple quest solutions because even though there are multiple ways to accomplish this you have to kill Hightower to complete the quest.

So? Combat filler is the undeniable design flaw, which brings down the overall quality of the game, but it doesn't make the choices meaningless.

You're missing the point. There's only one way to complete that quest: combat. You can change the amount of combat you have to complete or get different encounters but combat is the only solution to the quest. If, in Diablo II, after fighting your way through several levels of a dungeon you could take two different corridors to grab an item and one had a bunch of monsters and one was totally clear would you claim it has multiple quest solutions since you can alter the amount of combat you have to endure to complete the quest?

Dragon Age is no different you're just getting obsessed with the narrative aspect of the paths and confusing multiple endings with multiple solutions.

Yes. Same goes for stats, levels, and inventory (which does not make Warcraft 3 an RPG).

Choices & consequences are important to RPGs because it's the only genre that truly needs them to create gameplay variations, which is something that shooters and strategy/tactical games achieve in different ways. As for adventure games, they're usually too story-driven and rely on puzzle-solving to need C&C.

What are the different ways that shooters and strategy/tactical games achieve gameplay variations?

Is that what I said?

C&C include multiple quest solutions but multiple quest solutions don't always come with consequences (saving Tandi is a good example of MQS but a poor example of C&C).

If it's not I don't know what you're arguing here. This whole section started off with you talking about the lack of consequences in Fallout which I never even brought up.

Btw, whose alt are you?

No one's unless the Codex has some sort of Shining thing going on. Which would actually explain a lot.

 

[Angthoron]

"You can shoot him with the shotgun, rifle or the handgun, there is a lot of choices how to solve this quest".

"Your choice is weapon"?