The Dragon Age: Inquisition Thread

[Slow James]

This is silly. Of course BioWare had a conversation editor. For Obsidian, integrating their conversation editing tools into the Unity Engine seems to have taken about five seconds. (hyperbole)

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/399006-frostbite-2-really/#entry12442985

"It's not built entirely from scratch (there's a foundation that we can build upon and other systems that we can leverage), but there was no concept of a tree based conversation editor that let you quickly hook up speakers and whatnot. There is now, and it can even do some stuff that the one in Eclipse couldn't do to boot!"

Yes, very silly. I'm the silliest damn silly man this side of the Apollo.

 

[Infinitron]

This is silly. Of course BioWare had a conversation editor. For Obsidian, integrating their conversation editing tools into the Unity Engine seems to have taken about five seconds. (hyperbole)

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/399006-frostbite-2-really/#entry12442985

"It's not built entirely from scratch (there's a foundation that we can build upon and other systems that we can leverage), but there was no concept of a tree based conversation editor that let you quickly hook up speakers and whatnot. There is now, and it can even do some stuff that the one in Eclipse couldn't do to boot!"

Yes, very silly. I'm the silliest damn silly man this side of the Apollo.

Yeah, I'm not sure I can take that post at face value. They have an interest in making it seem like developing the game was harder than it actually was.

Of course, even if I'm right, that's not technically a lie. Yes, there was "no concept of a tree based converation editor" - UNTIL we hacked the one we used in the Eclipse engine into it. (And then we improved it too while we were at it!)

 

[Zombra]

First of all, so what? This is first and foremost matter of pacing, not realistic simulation. I thought your problem was that getting "instant rewards" feels weird to you. Ludo-narrative dissonance, etc. Well, having to do some work between ordering the mission and getting the reward improves the sense of pacing and removes that dissonance.

Second of all, I disagree - it doesn't feel like the player is doing the side content. It feels like stuff that is incidentally happening as time passes, with "number of quests completed" as an abstraction for time. I believe that the majority of players can accept that abstraction with no problems.

And third, if you really want a more "simulationist" take on mission allocation, then you should be in favor of a system that only takes into account in-game time, not the player's system clock.

Well ... it's not simulationism I'm after or praising here, it's just the sense that NPC action can be independent of player action. This is enhanced, not diminished, by the fact that action can continue even if the player isn't at the keyboard or turns off his computer altogether. It's just cool.

I've seen plenty of games before with preset triggers or counters in them. We all have. You go to Area A, pick up the Macguffin, take it to Area B, do the thing, then go back to Area A and find a ringing phone. I'm not saying it's a bad way to structure a game, but there's no spontaneity to it. You're correct that players can accept this kind of abstraction, because we've all been conditioned to it for decades. The player knows that he can stand there for 20 years and that phone will never ring until he takes the Macguffin to Area B. He also knows that he can make it ring in 30 seconds if he moves fast. The player controls when that phone rings as surely as if there was a Make Phone Ring button on the screen. Now, if the phone rings 60 minutes after you start playing, regardless of where you are and what you've done with the Macguffin, it feels independent, spontaneous, alive (although it can cause clear problems with gameplay if that phone call is plot-critical). The war table timer captures a hint of this kind of spontaneity, because it doesn't care where the player is when the timer runs out, or what he has done in the meantime. That's what I admire about this system (despite its attendant flaws) and I believe that that is part of the intention behind it.

 

[Infinitron]

I've seen plenty of games before with preset triggers or counters in them. We all have. You go to Area A, pick up the Macguffin, take it to Area B, do the thing, then go back to Area A and find a ringing phone. I'm not saying it's a bad way to structure a game, but there's no spontaneity to it. You're correct that players can accept this kind of abstraction, because we've all been conditioned to it for decades. The player knows that he can stand there for 20 years and that phone will never ring until he takes the Macguffin to Area B. He also knows that he can make it ring in 30 seconds if he moves fast. The player controls when that phone rings as surely as if there was a Make Phone Ring button on the screen.

This isn't the same thing. You're talking about a case of one specific trigger that makes one specific thing happen. I'm talking about a more generalized system. It's easier to accept abstraction when it's more generalized and consistent.

The war table timer captures a hint of this kind of spontaneity, because it doesn't care where the player is when the timer runs out, or what he has done in the meantime. That's what I admire about this system (despite its attendant flaws) and I believe that that is part of the intention behind it.

The primary intention is to prevent console gamers from rushing through the game and selling it back to Gamestop too quickly, so it's in their house when the DLC starts arriving.

It really is like a single player MMO, I guess. The world keeps on moving after you "log off".

That said, I can see why the novelty of it seems "cool".

 

[Slow James]

Yeah, I'm not sure I can take that post at face value. They have an interest in making it seem like developing the game was harder than it actually was.

Of course, even if I'm right, that's not technically a lie. Yes, there was "no concept of a tree based converation editor" - UNTIL we hacked the one we used in the Eclipse engine into it. (And then we improved it too while we were at it!)

Actually, that entire thread was an attempt by some of the Bioware devs to make the move to Frostbite not seem that big of deal. A poster was complaining that moving to a new engine designed for FPS would be a huge effort.


And, to play Devil's advocate, I never said creating a conversation editor tool would be HARD in my original statement. Just that the engine didn't have any such tool before Bioware got their hands on it.

 

[treave]

Well ... it's not simulationism I'm after or praising here, it's just the sense that NPC action can be independent of player action. This is enhanced, not diminished, by the fact that action can continue even if the player isn't at the keyboard or turns off his computer altogether. It's just cool.

I've seen plenty of games before with preset triggers or counters in them.

Exhibit A: Dragon Age: Inquisition's main plot.

When the villain will still hang around for you to endlessly farm side-quests if you want to, adding a real-time timer doesn't make any difference at all. The NPCs that truly matter certainly aren't acting independently of player action. This little mechanic is entirely meaningless to the narrative, easily gamed, and there is no way to make it important until you tie the main plot to a real-time timer too.

Also, it's not that novel a concept if you've seen any Facebook game in the past decade, or for that matter, even older multiplayer browser games like, say, Travian.

 

[Prime Junta]

Zombra I think you're overthinking it.

Tying those missions to system time is just the easiest way to accomplish that pacing goal. Since in-game time is not tracked, any other solution would have been more complex.

This is in fact typical of DA:I's design: they just about invariably went with the simplest thing, mechanically or otherwise. This has obvious advantages -- simple solutions aren't as likely to go wrong in unpredictable ways as more complex ones, which means they can put in more stuff without having to worry about it breaking or messing with other stuff.

Whether it makes for an engaging game is another question entirely.

 

[Slow James]

Exhibit A: Dragon Age: Inquisition's main plot.

When the villain will still hang around for you to endlessly farm side-quests if you want to, adding a real-time timer doesn't make any difference at all. The NPCs that truly matter certainly aren't acting independently of player action. This little mechanic is entirely meaningless to the narrative, easily gamed, and there is no way to make it important until you tie the main plot to a real-time timer too.

Also, it's not that novel a concept if you've seen any Facebook game in the past decade, or for that matter, even older multiplayer browser games like, say, Travian.

LMAO Real life timer requirements on main quest plot progression?

The butthurt... I can't imagine the butthurt.

 

[Perkel]

Exhibit A: Dragon Age: Inquisition's main plot.

When the villain will still hang around for you to endlessly farm side-quests if you want to, adding a real-time timer doesn't make any difference at all. The NPCs that truly matter certainly aren't acting independently of player action. This little mechanic is entirely meaningless to the narrative, easily gamed, and there is no way to make it important until you tie the main plot to a real-time timer too.

Also, it's not that novel a concept if you've seen any Facebook game in the past decade, or for that matter, even older multiplayer browser games like, say, Travian.

LMAO Real life timer requirements on main quest plot progression?

The butthurt... I can't imagine the butthurt.

I don't like strict timers. But i would be all aboard on day timers. Let's say you have a quest to deliver something in a week. Or that as a courier you will be rewarded more actually if you get there first or even moving some quest in different way if for example you had to deliver water to some village with caravan.

 

[Rake]

This is silly. Of course BioWare had a conversation editor. For Obsidian, integrating their conversation editing tools into the Unity Engine seems to have taken about five seconds. (hyperbole)

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/399006-frostbite-2-really/#entry12442985

"It's not built entirely from scratch (there's a foundation that we can build upon and other systems that we can leverage), but there was no concept of a tree based conversation editor that let you quickly hook up speakers and whatnot. There is now, and it can even do some stuff that the one in Eclipse couldn't do to boot!"

Yes, very silly. I'm the silliest damn silly man this side of the Apollo.

Yeah, I'm not sure I can take that post at face value. They have an interest in making it seem like developing the game was harder than it actually was.

Of course, even if I'm right, that's not technically a lie. Yes, there was "no concept of a tree based converation editor" - UNTIL we hacked the one we used in the Eclipse engine into it. (And then we improved it too while we were at it!)

I think you are wrong in that Infi. When Obsidian scraped Onyx engine they mentioned they kept their conversation tools and took effords to make them moddable to different engines in a "plug in" way.
I don't believe Bioware (or any other company) made the same effort, so developing dialogue tools from one engine to another isn't a 5 sec job as you think.
Keep in mind that Obsidian kept working on their dialogue tool for many games until they perfected it in Onyx

 

[Infinitron]

This is silly. Of course BioWare had a conversation editor. For Obsidian, integrating their conversation editing tools into the Unity Engine seems to have taken about five seconds. (hyperbole)

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/399006-frostbite-2-really/#entry12442985

"It's not built entirely from scratch (there's a foundation that we can build upon and other systems that we can leverage), but there was no concept of a tree based conversation editor that let you quickly hook up speakers and whatnot. There is now, and it can even do some stuff that the one in Eclipse couldn't do to boot!"

Yes, very silly. I'm the silliest damn silly man this side of the Apollo.

Yeah, I'm not sure I can take that post at face value. They have an interest in making it seem like developing the game was harder than it actually was.

Of course, even if I'm right, that's not technically a lie. Yes, there was "no concept of a tree based converation editor" - UNTIL we hacked the one we used in the Eclipse engine into it. (And then we improved it too while we were at it!)

I think you are wrong in that Infi. When Obsidian scraped Onyx engine they mentioned they kept their conversation tools and took effords to make them moddable to different engines in a "plug in" way.
I don't believe Bioware (or any other company) made the same effort, so developing dialogue tools from one engine to another isn't a 5 sec job as you think.
Keep in mind that Obsidian kept working on their dialogue tool for many games until they perfected it in Onyx

Well, we know they have tools they used for Mass Effect with the Unreal engine. Of course, those might not be the same tools, but I would think these AAA devs were more efficient than that.

Whatever. Feel free to ask Gaider about it.

 

[Rake]

Like i care. The problem with Bioware dialogue is the writers, not the tools

 

[Rake]

Thanks to what i learned from this thread i don't care even to pirate this. EA wins apparently.

 

[Slow James]

Thanks to what i learned from this thread i don't care even to pirate this. EA wins apparently.

An informed populace is a requisite for a sustainable republic.

 

[Rake]

Thanks to what i learned from this thread i don't care even to pirate this. EA wins apparently.

An informed populace is a requisite for a sustainable republic.

But not for a sustainable game Industry.

 

[Raghar]

Thanks to what i learned from this thread i don't care even to pirate this. EA wins apparently.

You can pirate, and don't play. You'd be part of pirate statistics, and they would be pissed.

 

[crawlkill]

given that I ended the game with about 500 power, they could easily have made the board activities locked to or accelerable by power. it serves no fucking purpose at all. you need less than 200--maybe less than 100--to get through the game, even if you do the various side-things that require it.

also

But not for a sustainable game Industry.

your sig has one of the worst and most nonsensical Pratchett lines ever that implies that crowds become more intelligent as more people are added to them and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it while impugning on popular taste, seriously, bro, do you even read

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Thanks to what i learned from this thread i don't care even to pirate this. EA wins apparently.

You can pirate, and don't play. You'd be part of pirate statistics, and they would be pissed.

They'll be happy to have something to blame if their last hope in the form of December sales show that November was right all along.

 

[commie]

your sig has one of the worst and most nonsensical Pratchett lines ever that implies that crowds become more intelligent as more people are added to them and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it while impugning on popular taste, seriously, bro, do you even read

Actually you are wrong. The sig implies that ever increasing numbers of people in a crowd actually decrease the return of collective intelligence as a rule and therefore it is very accurate. Intelligence will always increase as a total numerical value if added linearily BUT that line suggests that the more people you add, the actual intelligence of a group will decrease as an absolute percentage and increase at an ever decreasing rate the more people are added to it.


So yeah...maybe it's YOU that should read.

 

[Slow James]

But not for a sustainable game Industry.

I said that in jest, but as I think about it, I think the true could be said of the game industry. Long term, of course.

As RPG fans, we've seen insane stagnation and decline in our genre of choice. Decline which we're just now starting to see a turn around on (bonus points for using decline in a serious manner on the Codex). But across the industry? We've seen increasing levels of complexity that quickly become the "gold standard" to include in games going forward.

Take a look at the sports games. Back when games like Ultima 1 were coming out, you had EA making its first sports game, Larry Bird and Dr. J Go One on One. This was a simple two actor game, with only a shot and block/steal button. No stats, no team, no even passing the ball. Let's fast forward to today and look at your standard NBA 2K game - the game involves large scale stat and team management, training/practicing and leveling opportunities and even a career mode, where you can create your own player, including appearance, "class" (in the form of basketball position), full myriad of stats and engage in C&C where you can do things like make multiple comments in a post-game TV interview. Heck, that lets you do more character creation customization than DA:I does.

Does that mean NBA 2K is a good series? No - it's not bad if you like sports games, but the annualized nature of this entire genre leaves it rife with copy pasta design methods. But the point remains - RPGs led the industry in complexity, customization, story telling and player agency/choice. It had to suffer quite a bit for the entire industry to grow in total numbers, but now universally, all genres are moving towards RPG elements. Look at FPS with MP leveling schemes, or Tiger Woods with stat-driven "equipment," or divergent story paths in the Black Ops Single player campaigns - these all could rival some of the RPGs in the 80's or 90's in terms of systems or other RPG aspects.

As the masses become indoctrinated to party tactics, resource management, power leveling, stat application, complex character creation and reactive game worlds (even if they don't realize it), games will be forced to make this the standard, not the exception. In that sense, the masses are unknowingly driving our cause forward. It has taken quite some time for the industry to catch up to a more complex gaming style - and there were tons of crap added along the way in the process - but it is possible that RPGs aren't nearly as far away from the mainstream as it was once thought.

 

[Infinitron]

But not for a sustainable game Industry.

I said that in jest, but as I think about it, I think the true could be said of the game industry. Long term, of course.

As RPG fans, we've seen insane stagnation and decline in our genre of choice. Decline which we're just now starting to see a turn around on (bonus points for using decline in a serious manner on the Codex). But across the industry? We've seen increasing levels of complexity that quickly become the "gold standard" to include in games going forward.

Take a look at the sports games. Back when games like Ultima 1 were coming out, you had EA making its first sports game, Larry Bird and Dr. J Go One on One. This was a simple two actor game, with only a shot and block/steal button. No stats, no team, no even passing the ball. Let's fast forward to today and look at your standard NBA 2K game - the game involves large scale stat and team management, training/practicing and leveling opportunities and even a career mode, where you can create your own player, including appearance, "class" (in the form of basketball position), full myriad of stats and engage in C&C where you can do things like make multiple comments in a post-game TV interview. Heck, that lets you do more character creation customization than DA:I does.

Does that mean NBA 2K is a good series? No - it's not bad if you like sports games, but the annualized nature of this entire genre leaves it rife with copy pasta design methods. But the point remains - RPGs led the industry in complexity, customization, story telling and player agency/choice. It had to suffer quite a bit for the entire industry to grow in total numbers, but now universally, all genres are moving towards RPG elements. Look at FPS with MP leveling schemes, or Tiger Woods with stat-driven "equipment," or divergent story paths in the Black Ops Single player campaigns - these all could rival some of the RPGs in the 80's or 90's in terms of systems or other RPG aspects.

As the masses become indoctrinated to party tactics, resource management, power leveling, stat application, complex character creation and reactive game worlds (even if they don't realize it), games will be forced to make this the standard, not the exception. In that sense, the masses are unknowingly driving our cause forward. It has taken quite some time for the industry to catch up to a more complex gaming style - and there were tons of crap added along the way in the process - but it is possible that RPGs aren't nearly as far away from the mainstream as it was once thought.

Not the first time somebody has made this observation:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/nba-2k-becomes-even-more-rpgish.75721/
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/ea-sports-makes-better-rpgs-than-bioware.66508/
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...bers-the-dumbing-down-of-rpg-mechanics.56378/
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/mlb-the-show-best-rpg-on-console.77000/

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Is it normal that whenever Bioware makes a new game, the numbers of Codex camp style enthusiasts mysteriously quadruples?

 

[Frozen]

DAI is shit.
I don't see how it being shit will make it good in the long run. It will only generate more of the same if successful.
Its more complex shit but its still shit.
The only thing that will generate quality is technology progress but consoles are killing development. Next gen is a joke its top PC of last gen. They are dragging us down.
The only reason I cant run DAI maxed out on my 5870 is because its console first and badly optimized.
Next gen being a joke is reason Witcher 3 will have problems maxinig out on any single GPU of present date because GPU manufactures are also slowing down. No reason to have 10 times more power than console fuck, its not profitable.
Compare this with a game from 2003. and 2007.-2 bio games like Kotor and ME1 and you see significant up regarding graphics. Now there is none.

 

[Jaesun]

Is it normal that whenever Bioware makes a new game, the numbers of Codex camp style enthusiasts mysteriously quadruples?

Every year BioWare/EA releases a game the threads get flooded by retards.

 

[Zombra]

I've seen plenty of games before with preset triggers or counters in them. We all have.

You're talking about a case of one specific trigger that makes one specific thing happen. I'm talking about a more generalized system. It's easier to accept abstraction when it's more generalized and consistent.

Well ... I was using a simple example to make a point. The same problem is inherent in any similar system. I agree that the more complex it is, the more the effect is "masked", but it is still there and still affects my experience.

The war table timer captures a hint of this kind of spontaneity .... That's what I admire about this system and I believe that that is part of the intention behind it.

The primary intention is to prevent console gamers from rushing through the game and selling it back to Gamestop too quickly, so it's in their house when the DLC starts arriving.

No argument here - but the fact remains that there are interesting and fun implications of this system for those of us that appreciate them. Maybe my enjoyment is entirely incidental to Bioware's EA's intentions, but I do enjoy this system for valid reasons, and I believe that the idea is worthy of exploration in future titles.

That said, I can see why the novelty of it seems "cool".

:D

When the villain will still hang around for you to endlessly farm side-quests if you want to, adding a real-time timer doesn't make any difference at all. The NPCs that truly matter certainly aren't acting independently of player action. This little mechanic is entirely meaningless to the narrative, easily gamed, and there is no way to make it important until you tie the main plot to a real-time timer too.

To be clear: I never said and am not saying now that this system drives the game, or that it should drive the game, or even that it is particularly well done. Obviously, slapping a simple real-time clock on the main quest of any single-player RPG would be ridiculous and horrible. All I am saying is that the war table system is extraordinary in its establishment of NPC action as truly independent of player action.

Zombra I think you're overthinking it.

Quite possible, freely admitted

This is in fact typical of DA:I's design: they just about invariably went with the simplest thing, mechanically or otherwise. Whether it makes for an engaging game is another question entirely.

For me (←important), this system definitely does make for a more engaging game.