Game News Dragon Age forum updates: non-violent solutions

[Surlent]

The Bio thread seems to have been locked up.

But all in Codex agree with Gaider ? Can't you all see this is part of Bio's tuning down campaign ?
They're watered down Magic system and day&night cycle, go for "epic" vanilla plot and have no hot lesbian action. Now (especially last part) just doesn't sound right. Maybe others call it centralization or concentrating on strong points, but I just call it plain stripping features away.

Perhaps in Dragon Age, which is designed to have mass battles like Lord of the Rings, it's appropriate to skip such options if the whole game centers around that design idea.

But generally tuning down options is definite no no.
Same way there shoud be extra violent choices, there should be non violent also. For example blood thirsty fighters and cruel necromancers go for more gore the better and for pacifist cleric or smooth talker negotiation options to get through with words. Through their actions they roleplay their character.
Many times when you complete quests nonviolently, dialogue is involved. If you want to extraplote, you could say that's taking away from the dialogue options which lead to different solutions. How's that for crpg ?

Bad practical situation doesn't mean you need to force variety there though, no sense in that and like suggested class oriented quests might be better solution than stuffing every quest with options that don't make sense.

Combat is as integral to the game as the devs want it to be. For hack 'n slash and dungeon crawl type game they are most that matters. For computer roleplaying game, I can't say the same. In Fallout you can runaway from random encounters and sneak past the rest (good dexterity can help). And in Arcanum "third party" ie your half ogre party members handled the combat, while PC was taking the sun.

 

[Volourn]

Yo, Dumb McFlys, do you all happen to miss the fact he quite clearly stated that DA will likely have more ways to solve quests non vilioently than other BIo games or did you conviently miss the part so how exactly are they dumbing it down?

Idiots.

 

[ElastiZombie]

Completely unfeasible because it will be a shitload of work for a developer, but it would be nice. :wink:

Maybe if the developers spent less time trying to figure out how to render each individual hair on an ogre's ass in 3D then they would have more time to work on plot and gameplay...
Or am I being too unreasonable?

 

[Sol Invictus]

They're watered down Magic system

No, they didn't 'water down the magic system', inspite of your beliefs that they did. The implementation of mana in no way 'dumbs down' whatever magic system they have planned. D&D's magic system is shitty for the PC. It isn't complex, either - so there's no 'dumbing down' just because they decided not to go with it. And besides, they'd be accused of 'plaguerism' or 'lack of originality' if they went with D&D's memorization crap.

and day&night cycle,

Pure conjecture. I don't know if they're implementing a night & day cycle (they said they most likely aren't) but they're making the transitions more 'realistic' so if you were to do a mission that put you in a castle at night, it would stay night time as long as you remained there. It wouldn't make sense for the place to turn to day - which might conflict with the story, or require a large amount of NPC scripts to deal with the possibility that the player wants to stay in the stupid location for 2 months without ever being found.

go for "epic" vanilla plot and have no hot lesbian action.

Um, yeah.

Now (especially last part) just doesn't sound right. Maybe others call it centralization or concentrating on strong points, but I just call it plain stripping features away.

If they were never features in Dragon Age to begin with, how can you argue that they were 'stripped away'?

Yo, Dumb McFlys, do you all happen to miss the fact he quite clearly stated that DA will likely have more ways to solve quests non vilioently than other BIo games or did you conviently miss the part so how exactly are they dumbing it down?

Exactly. People in this thread seem to have a nasty habit of glossing over all of the parts where Gaider says that there will be multiple solutions to quests. Straw man arguments everywhere.

 

[Greatatlantic]

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..

Yeah, I'm sure from a realist point they didn't make any sense, but they gave you a chance to do things differently. On the other hand, how likely is it that one guy (nano augmentations or not) can take out multiple military grade mechs? Not only that, but he does so multiple times. I'm not complaining, but RPGs always walk the fine line of suspension of disbelief.

 

[Surlent]

If they were never features in Dragon Age to begin with, how can you argue that they were 'stripped away'?

Since the BG series. Bio's dogma derives from there.

 

[Volourn]

"Maybe if the developers spent less time trying to figure out how to render each individual hair on an ogre's ass in 3D then they would have more time to work on plot and gameplay...
Or am I being too unreasonable?"

I'm sure you realize the Graphic Artists hvae nothing to do with the story or role-playing right? Gaider is not going to lose 6 hours of writing time because a graphics artist was playing touch the ogre's balls for 6 hours. Does not compute.


"Since the BG series. Bio's dogma derives from there."

Their games have only improved role-playing wise since BG1.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I think there's a difference between the suspension of disbelief and watching a single agent singlehandedly take out entire armies - Majestic 12, UNATCO, Bob Page's Private Army, Versalife Security. What's worse is how JC Denton manages to take out individuals as strong as himself, or even stronger. Deus Ex was the PC equivilent of a Steven Seagal movie.

Though I liked the game and the storyline, parts of it were a little too unrealistic to grasp. A new game featuring squad AI and independent allies would do more justice to the setting.

 

[Greatatlantic]

Exactly. People in this thread seem to have a nasty habit of glossing over all of the parts where Gaider says that there will be multiple solutions to quests. Straw man arguments everywhere.

Yeah, but with double the nonviolent solutions, even if they actually achieve it, that might cover 10% of the game. The other 90% will be going through dungeons fighting off hordes of generic low level enemies. Then, everyonce in a while, you can talk somebody out of fighting if you invested in persuasion. Sure, you could theoretically sneak past them, but you won't get any XP for doing so, making the whole thing worthless.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, but with double the nonviolent solutions, even if they actually achieve it, that might cover 10% of the game. The other 90% will be going through dungeons fighting off hordes of generic low level enemies. Then, everyonce in a while, you can talk somebody out of fighting if you invested in persuasion. Sure, you could theoretically sneak past them, but you won't get any XP for doing so, making the whole thing worthless.

That is pure conjecture. You assume Dragon Age will be as bad as Icewind Dale in terms of the combat to storyline ratio, but I disagree. Everything they have said thus far indicates that the game will be along the lines of Baldur's Gate, and not along the lines of hackfests like Diablo and Icewind Dale.

 

[ElastiZombie]

"Maybe if the developers spent less time trying to figure out how to render each individual hair on an ogre's ass in 3D then they would have more time to work on plot and gameplay...
Or am I being too unreasonable?"

I'm sure you realize the Graphic Artists hvae nothing to do with the story or role-playing right? Gaider is not going to lose 6 hours of writing time because a graphics artist was playing touch the ogre's balls for 6 hours. Does not compute.

I do realize that. I was refering more to the time that programmers would spend tweaking the graphics engine as taking away from time that could be spent on making more elaborate tools for the designers to use to develop content. I should have been more clear.

 

[Volourn]

DA's scripting tools are a more advanced version of NWN's which, btw, are solid. And, I'd think by now, that aprt of the engine should be completed. I don't think they'd be wasting the programmers time on that anymore anyways.

 

[Sarvis]

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

Point is that if you REQUIRE multiple solutions to every obstacle you limit the obstacles you can have.

You think my examples are stupid, so I won't give you any... but I don't see how you can argue the point.

As for your LoTR counter, sure Aragorn could have done something else in the battle... but then we enter a huge "what if" territory. Aragorn and Gimli played fairly key roles in Helm's Deep, and not many others had their skill. So how then could they have held off the orcs for so long just by being inspired, or having better direction? Not to mention that they were being directed by quite a capable general already!

Plus you completely avoided dealing with the Ringwraith attack. I guess you just couldn't have that kind of situation in the game right? So then we go back to limiting the obstacles you can have, thus limiting both your design and story, just to support a pacifist path through the game.

Meanwhile you'll notice that the book provided a place which is well suited for different options shortly afterwards, when they were attacked in the town and Aragorn tricked them rather than fighting them off again. See, that made sense... but it couldn't be done every time just to gaurantee you never fight.

 

[Trash]

Completely unfeasible because it will be a shitload of work for a developer, but it would be nice. :wink:

Maybe if the developers spent less time trying to figure out how to render each individual hair on an ogre's ass in 3D then they would have more time to work on plot and gameplay...
Or am I being too unreasonable?

Yup, unfortunately you are. The big publishers demand cool graphics to draw in the kids. Those that don't offer what the big boys want to see get no contract, no money, no game. A few small independant publishers manage to survive (spiderweb software) but most disappear silently into the night. It's the way of the industry....

 

[Greatatlantic]

That is pure conjecture. You assume Dragon Age will be as bad as Icewind Dale in terms of the combat to storyline ratio, but I disagree. Everything they have said thus far indicates that the game will be along the lines of Baldur's Gate, and not along the lines of hackfests like Diablo and Icewind Dale.

Of course its conjecture, obviously, I'm fully expecting them to take the same routes they did with KotOR and NWN. And the story to combat ratio, as you call it, was terrible. Both the stories were excuses to go fight in dungeons. If they had said we want to take Dragon Age to a more story oriented less combat type of game, I'd be more receptive to such conjecture as you make. However, they say that they want to focus on combat, with the weak excuse of it being more "epic". That sounds a lot like the two games I just mentioned. Epic "vanilla" stories to string together loads of combat.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Completely unfeasible because it will be a shitload of work for a developer, but it would be nice. :wink:

Maybe if the developers spent less time trying to figure out how to render each individual hair on an ogre's ass in 3D then they would have more time to work on plot and gameplay...
Or am I being too unreasonable?

Yup, unfortunately you are. The big publishers demand cool graphics to draw in the kids. Those that don't offer what the big boys want to see get no contract, no money, no game. A few small independant publishers manage to survive (spiderweb software) but most disappear silently into the night. It's the way of the industry....

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question he asked. He asked if whether developers spending less time on graphics would allow them more time to work on plot and gameplay. He didn't ask if the industry insisted on 'cool graphics' rather than on 'cool gameplay'. Even if he did, you would still be wrong.

There are many games that feature 'cool graphics' with zero 'cool gameplay' and with history as my witness, games that skimp on gameplay seldom do very well. Case in point: Shiny Entertainment's "Sacrifice", and "Messiah". Two titles that had top notch graphics, but poor gameplay. These two titles lost Interplay quite a bit of money because Shiny invested on the graphics without bothering to do anything with the gameplay, interface or creativity of those titles. Less good looking games like Starcraft and Total Annihilation completely outsold Sacrifice, inspite of not looking as pretty.

To answer his question: David Gaider doesn't work on art, so the point he was trying to make is completely irrelevent.

 

[Balor]

Ok, let's put it this way:
Non-violent way out does not always mean 'not killing those guys' by sneaking past or talking your way out of situation.
Well, it's a usually a good thing to allow that anyway, but if confrontation is anavoidable, how about not 'avoiding killing' but 'avoiding direct combat'?
Like releasing poison gas to kill all the guards, hiring someone else to kill they some guy you need dead, etc.
After all, while combat can be fun, non-violent approach should also be present in, at least, 90% of situations.
I recal, you can complete fallout without killing anyone (by yourself) at all!
You can sneak past random encounters and usual monsters, and use speech and hired muscle to solve sticky situations.
That's one of the reasons Fallout is loved by virtually anyone.
Why not DA follow the same path?

 

[ElastiZombie]

DA's scripting tools are a more advanced version of NWN's which, btw, are solid. And, I'd think by now, that aprt of the engine should be completed. I don't think they'd be wasting the programmers time on that anymore anyways.

You're probably right. Apart from the odd bug fix, they should not be messing with the code much anymore. I just hope that they make their new tools a little more accessible than the Aurora engine was. I found the learning curve to be a bit steep.

 

[ElastiZombie]

To answer his question: David Gaider doesn't work on art, so the point he was trying to make is completely irrelevent.

Sorry, I have a habit of going off on tangents when it comes to my own pet peeves. I will try to keep it down to a minimum. :D

 

[Balor]

Exit, when you say that Sacrifice suck, speak for youself.
It had great graphics AND gameplay. Nice story and replayablity too. One of more fun, innovation and immersing games I've ever played... Perhaps you just didn't like/understand the setting.

 

[Stark]

As for your LoTR counter, sure Aragorn could have done something else in the battle... but then we enter a huge "what if" territory. Aragorn and Gimli played fairly key roles in Helm's Deep, and not many others had their skill. So how then could they have held off the orcs for so long just by being inspired, or having better direction? Not to mention that they were being directed by quite a capable general already!

Plus you completely avoided dealing with the Ringwraith attack. I guess you just couldn't have that kind of situation in the game right? So then we go back to limiting the obstacles you can have, thus limiting both your design and story, just to support a pacifist path through the game.

It's funny no one raise this so far: the setting and mood of the game dictates very much if non-violent solution should exist for every confrontation in a game. The type of game Bioware aims for (epic, heroic stuff along the lines of LOTR) it makes sense there'll be situation where non-violent solution would just fail to fit in.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Point is that if you REQUIRE multiple solutions to every obstacle you limit the obstacles you can have.

Not really. I have a lot of very different quests in my game, can't say that I was ever limited in what I could have there.

You think my examples are stupid

I don't. If you refer to our prev discussion, some examples didn't fit very well, but I don't believe I've referred to them as stupid.

So how then could they have held off the orcs for so long just by being inspired, or having better direction? Not to mention that they were being directed by quite a capable general already!

One can inspire without fighting and provide better support by watching the field. For example, the bomb could have been spotted earlier and some defenses mounted thus preventing the breach of the walls, etc.

Plus you completely avoided dealing with the Ringwraith attack.

Like I said a book is one thing, a game is another. I didn't want to go into too much details and make shit up creating layers around that situiation that could be used by non-fighting folks. The book is good enough without me fucking it up.

 

[Trash]

Hmm, must be my bad english for misunderstanding. I thought I was awnsering his "Or am I being too unreasonable?" sentence. Still, calling forth a few great looking shitty selling games doesn't deter from the fact that the industry seems opbsessed with wanting games more shinier and prettier at every turn. Ever had yourself a games console that didn't become obsolete in about 2-3 years?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Exit, when you say that Sacrifice suck, speak for youself.
It had great graphics AND gameplay. Nice story and replayablity too. One of more fun, innovation and immersing games I've ever played... Perhaps you just didn't like/understand the setting.

Sacrifice sucked, in terms of gameplay. The story was nothing special but the different gods were cool. I liked the setting, but I didn't like the gameplay. All it consisted of was getting as many souls as you could on the map and attacking your enemy. There was no way for them to recoup because the number of souls on each mission was limited. If you attacked an enemy and lost, you were as good as dead, because all he would have to do to win was to harvest all of the souls you lost and invade you when your forces were diminished.

Was it balanced? Hardly. As I stated, all it consisted of was getting as many souls as you could. If you attacked an enemy base and had to return to recoup, you lost - because the enemy could just harvest your souls.

Sacrifice was a lousy game and it sold poorly as a result.

 

[AlanC9]

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.

Many people beat the NWN OC with a rogue. If you try to steath instead of fight wherever possible, it's somewhat difficult - missing all the kill XP means you finish the game at something like level 9 - but quite doable.

Yeah, I shouldn't have dragged this up, but I can't resist it when people advertise their own poor tactics.