69 réponses à ce sujet

[djackson75]

 http://www.1up.com/f...?pager.offset=0



Dragon Age 2 is a curious beast. It loosely
resembles its predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins,
due to its tweaked combat, change in visual style, and emphasis on a different
protagonist. We liked it, but it certainly left us with some questions. So to
that end, we chatted with DA2 lead designer Mike Laidlaw, and asked him about
some lingering story questions that we were curious about, the decisions behind
the companion design and other mechanics, and even about the recycled dungeon
design.

1UP: First of all, it's
been a week since Dragon Age 2 has shipped. What have you guys been doing
lately, now that your game is done?

Mike Laidlaw: When
we finish, there's kind of three things that happen, and of course there's one
thing about games: they "finish" before they're on shelves. What we
try to do is, there's always a little bit of extra effort in the end. Some
people take vacation because they're feeling like, "oh, phew, I got that
done"; we try to stagger that out so that there're always hands on-deck
for support. And that's one of our priorities when a game hits shelves: keeping
our eyes on our forums, technical feedback, questions, and so forth. Help out
where we can, and certainly log anything that we can that turn out to be bugs
so that we can patch it. We have an initial beta patch out already for some
pretty urgent issues on the PC -- really to make sure the support can get done.

For those not on vacation, or those
not in the warroom to make sure that things aren't exploding, are looking at
DLC, looking at future plans, and figuring out what new content we're going to
do. A big part of that is looking at reviews -- understanding what people loved
or hated about the game. Seeing's what mixed or very divisive, which is often
an artistic success, and then looking at all of those elements together and
thinking, "okay, our next steps need to be guided by that." You never
want to go in blind, or1UP:
Having experimented with a framed narrative, any interest in trying it again
down the road? Is there anything you would want to change about your approach?

ML: I
think ultimately, the framed narrative does a very good job of two things: one,
it tells the story in a different way, and that was something we consciously
wanted to do with Dragon Age 2 -- which was to set out and not do the
traditional rehash; we didn't want to just do the Origin story all over again,
and two, to not tell the "classic fantasy story" with the big bad
looming over the hill that you can sort of see and then target. So the framed
narrative was something that mechanically helped us to create a sense of
curiosity -- to find out what happens next through, essentially, dire
predictions and warnings, and a state of the world that seems very different
from what you'd expect Dragon Age to move into. So the framed narrative
conveyed that very quickly upfront.

And I think it did so in a way,
that I'm very happy with, that it didn't confuse -- other than some potential
misunderstanding or element of "wait, what happened" right at the
very beginning. But I think it did a very good job in being clear as to how it
worked as a storytelling mechanic. "Oh I see, we're not moving
forward"; it's very consistent in how it's used. The other thing that I
think is a very big success, and I'm very happy with, is seeing people start
think about it, and start to ask themselves, "what does it mean, if this
entire narration, isn't real." Well, for the most part, we're trying to
make sure the player's agency isn't undercut. But it adds a layer of
meta-storytelling; are there other elements that Varric [the narrator] is
exaggerating that we don't get called out on? It creates a layer of thought
that lingers with you after it's done, and makes you go, "well, what's
next? How much of that was real?"

1UP: So you're okay if
people think Varric is lying the entire time?

ML: It
leaves itself open to that interpretation. But, it doesn't do so in a way that
makes you spend the entire game frustrated by going, "this is all going to
be a lie anyway." And another thing: it's not all going to be taken away
five minutes from now. It's something you can actually contemplate, and kind of
like Schrodinger's Cat, you may never actually know how much of that was
entirely true. But it creates a second layer of thought about the game;
something more meta that allows you to contemplate and go, "I
wonder," and that's something that I think gave the game's story more
endurance than it would otherwise have.

1UP: So my first story
question is, what led to the decision to make it focus on a named protagonist,
Hawke, instead of continuing the Warden's story?

 without a bit of humility, as no game is ever
"perfeML:
It's funny, if you actually look at it, the Warden's name is Aeducan or Amell
or so on and so on. That already happened, but to put so much emphasis on the
last name, and why we decided to do that, really was because we wanted to
achieve something with Dragon Age 2. And specifically, what we wanted to do
was, as lead writer David Gaider comments, "kick over the
sandcastle." The endstate of Origins was that the world had been saved:
"good job, we stopped the Blight, and we're good now, right? Everything
good, right?" And that state is not one that inherently interesting --
it's not one that creates a sense of drama or tension or expectation of what's
coming next. It did a great job of encapsulating that story, and it certainly
left enough danglers for the future, but what we wanted to do was to take conventions
and elements of the Dragon Age world that people knew and understood, and let
people know that our intent is to change and evolve this world. That we won't
let it stagnate and become a "oh, it'll take place 20 years later and it
will be the same with another Blight."

Dragon Age 2, by having a main
character, a character who gets swept into the events that precipitate this
change, needed a storytelling mechanic that challenged us and asked us to try
something new. But also allowed us to show how the world changed without it
being some sort of footnote in history. It allowed us to show that it wasn't
just some grand conspiracy or just something that we decided to do, but that it
was something that involved a person, and had an intensely personal element to
it.

1UP: Overall, how fixed were the main story elements and
plot beats? Was everything, starting from the beginning down to how the endgame
works, set in stone first?

ML: The story always
evolved -- as you outline it and start to get detailed, more elements get
added. But in terms of the general beats, and where we wanted to start and what
state the world will be in by the end, that was something that we had pretty
clear direction for. Something to keep the rudder pointed in the right way.

WARNING: MASSIVE
ENDGAME SPOILERS BELOW. SKIP THIS UNTIL YOU SEE THE BIG HEADING AGAIN

1UP: So, specifically, was it always intended to have the player
fight both Meredith and Orsino? It almost felt like there was a fork in the
path, where by supporting the Mages you would fight Meredith and supporting the
Templars would get you to fight Orsino. So it actually surprised me to have the
player fight both...

ML: It was considered,
certainly. Any time you have two opposing villains or forces, that kind of
thing gets considered. But to be fair, from the beginning, our goal with Dragon
Age 2 was to not have either side be the "good guys." Even up to the
player who thought, "I'm choosing the good guys, so I'm going with the
mages," the revelation that even at the top level, that mages were still
susceptible, was something very important to us. To show that normal people can
become villains in the same way that normal people can become heroes.

1UP: Somewhat related,
what would be considered the "canon" ending? Or alternately, when you
personally play through the game, which side do you -- Mike Laidlaw -- prefer
to support?

ML: I've
played through so many times, it's hard to even say. I think personally, what I
am, frankly, is pro-order. I'm actually pro-Aveline more than anyone else.
She's the one doing the hardest possible job of trying to keep the people safe;
while two power groups that are increasingly spiraling towards their own
destruction do so with decreasing concern for the common people. They get so
wrapped up in their own drama that they stop caring. That in itself is
something that does linger with you. You look at Meredith, and see her
questioning her own beliefs at the very end, and you understand that no one
really wanted it to come to this, and yet it did. This is something, whether it
was historical imperative or the acts of one or two specific people, it's hard
to say. And I think that, in of itself, is more true to history than,
"well, there's the looming demon. Let's go kill it."

1UP: So, in the first
time you played the complete game from beginning to end, what was your
character build?

ML: Me, my
first playthrough that I can recall, since there were so many different ones
that were aborted due to code changes, the first big playthrough that I recall
was as a mage, going pro-mage of course. Events like the reunion with Carver
(who joined the Templars out of spite), and then having Aveline and Isabela at
my side.

ENDGAME
SPOILERS ARE DONE.

1UP:
Gameplay-wise, Mages are still quite popular, but Warriors and Rogues seem to
have made major strides in Dragon Age 2. Do you feel like the class balance has
been completely redressed, or things like Archer Rogues and cold-magic wielding
Mages still too powerful?

ML: I
don't think anyone should ever say they're done balancing or designing classes.
There's always something better we can do. Here's what I think we did: with
Dragon Age 2, we kind of recognize that there were two paths. With Origins,
Warriors and Rogues existed in what I tend to think of as "low
fantasy" paradigm. They weren't particularly flashy, and they swung their
swords at a reasonable pace. They engaged in combat in a way that I call "mundane."
The Mages, though, were masters of pyrotechnics and spell combos and so no.
Basically, Mages were arguably overpowered, but also flashier and more visually
satisfying.

So we recognize that we can go
one of two ways: one would be to pull Mages down and say, "they now have
to mix potions and throw flasks, so they have much longer casts and much longer
risk-reward factors and so on." I absolutely think that could work; a Mage
fantasy game that feels like that would work very well because it's consistent
across the board. But that wasn't the decision we chose to make, because with
mages, we already established this degree ofpyrotechnics.

So we looked at Rogue and we
looked at Warrior, and said, "I think we can bring them up to be as
satisfying and visceral as tossing a fireball." And we reach a level of
parity where being a warrior doesn't feel like, "that lame thing I don't
want to play because I want to play a mage instead." And so, that's where
adding some more visuals, or being able to take on multiple guys with a single
swing and so on, became part of the Warrior's paradigm. Similarly, the Rogue
and the high mobility brought them into the same level of parity. We're not
done balancing -- there's still tons of work to continue to do about how the
different classes can interact and so on. We can even deepen the tactical depth
of it, but for now, I'm happy with the steps we made thus far.

WARNING:
SPOILERS FOR ACT 2 AND 3 BELOW. IF YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SKIP
THIS NEXT SECTION ALSO.

1UP: The Qunari/Kirkwall
conflict in Act Two can be read as being similar to some of the discrimination
that Muslims currently face in America. Was that a conscious decision, to have
this fantasy parallel to a real-world occurrence? How happy were you with your
exploration of that theme?

ML: That's
an association the player can make; it's not something we consciously did. We
actively wanted to explore the Qunari as a culture. You got a very narrow slice
of them with Sten, and they're fascinating. They're quite different from what
you expect -- they almost have a linguistic element to their racial physiology
and their mind with things like the, "woman can't be warriors"
concept. And so, really, the goal of the Qunari was to deepen the existing race.
We knew there would be some reaction -- that we saw both positive and negative
-- to the way they look now with the addition of the horns. They certainly
stand out quite a bit more. And yet, adding that extra experience like the
chance to deal with the Arishok not as a villain or an alien, but as a person
on what I see as a personal level was something that I think added a ton to
them as a race. And really, helped Dragon Age as a whole move beyond the
"Elf, Dwarf, Human, and that guy Sten" paradigm -- we wanted to move
it into "Elven, Dwarf, Human, and Qunari" as a viable culture,
philosophy, race, and entity within the world.

1UP: Given that
the Qunari sections in Act Two are being called some of the strongest in the
game, would you extend it into Act Three given another opportunity? The
Templar/Mage and Kirkwall/Qunari themes do mesh extremely well, and I'm
wondering if that is something you would have tweaked given another chance.

ML: I'm
quite happy with how [Act Three] turned out. I think that there is always the
danger of muddying the water when you blend too many elements together. And
yet, at the same time, I by no means think that the Qunari are finished in
terms of Dragon Age storytelling. They do play an absolutely fascinating part,
especially given their treatment of mages and their view of magic overall. And
some reasonably dire predictions about magic overall. It's something we'll
continue to explore. I mean, could it have worked to roll them into the third
portion of the game? Absolutely. Did it work that they weren't there? I think
so as well. You can do it either way, and it's just a matter of which choice we
ended up making.

NO MORE
STORY SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ONWARD

1UP: A common sentiment
seems to be that the quest "Shepherding Wolves" presents a bit of a
missed opportunity: the chance to have a Qunari Mage companion. The story
reasoning behind why you can't get that Mage is understandable, but throughout
the quest, I (and from browsing forums, readers and other reviewers) thought,
"wow, this is a different take on the Mage archetype; it'd be great to
have Ketojan in my party." Was that ever a consideration? Or did the
strong response to him and his unavailability for your party, come as a
surprise?

ML: I
think what it does, it shows that that particular Saarebas was a success --
that the story around him was certainly intriguing, and pulled people in. And
you always consider many possibilities -- Dwarven female was on the plate at
one point -- so on and so forth. You always consider them. The big goal is to
make sure we do it right; to make sure we give them their full due. The group
we went with was the ones that we felt provided a reasonable array of the
political forces around Kirkwall. While the Qunari were certainly a heavy
political force, the Saarebas -- especially given their default state is to be
unable to talk -- became a bit more problematic. That was one where we said,
"let's experiment. Let's see if we can put them together correctly for the
purposes of presenting them as 'the other' before we bring them into the
party."

1UP: So, can you
expand on the general companion design, now that the game is out and people
have seen the full roster? I personally liked how DAO, in addition to Humans,
Elves, and Dwarves, also had a Qunari and even a golem companion, and I myself
missed that "diversity" in DA2. What goes into companions?

ML: A
breadth of class, culture, gender, and romantic options -- all these things are
factored in. It's never a binding contract for the future that Shale could
never make a re-appearance, or to not have another increasingly exotic or
different character. In fact, one of our favorite parts in working with our
writers is coming up with who our rogue's gallery is going to be -- who is
going to join me? I think our big goal is always to provide fantasy fulfillment
-- characters I find intriguing and I want to have along. But also, characters
that are fleshed out that feel like real people and would realistically be in
this situation to spend time with the character that you play.

1UP: Why did you decide
to make Fenris and Isabela in effect "bonus characters" (since those
two can be completely skipped over without effort)? Compare that to Varric,
where he literally walks into your party as part of a plot-based cut-scene. It
stands out a bit more in Isabela's case, since she fills in major gaps in the
plot for Act Two.

ML: To
answer that question, let me get Socratic for a second and say: "Well,
does Origins not work if you don't have Sten or Leliana in your party?"
I'll just leave you with that, because the simple truth in my mind is, that if
there is an element to the story that Isabela adds notable depth to, and that
her reactions are also dependent on whether you're close enough friends or
strong enough rivals, it just adds texture to the Qunari conflict that isn't
necessary. To me, that's one of those things, I can compare notes to a friend
of mine and go, "oh, that's interesting, I did not know that." We try
to provide those while providing a cohesive main storyline. Again, Leliana
gives a significant change to the way you perceive the Urn of Sacred Ashes. If
she's there, does she accost you afterwards, and so on. But she is a character
that you could potentially not have in Origins, and again, it creates a bit of
diversity to help make the game memorable without hurting the overall arc of
the story.

1UP: Now that the
game is out and about, upon reflection, who are your favorite companions and
why?

ML: I
think anyone who hasn't experienced the banter between Aveline and Isabela is
missing out. There's some amazing banter all throughout the game, and I think
the writers did an excellent job of the characters feeling like they've been
chatting and having a life outside of your adventures -- like they had just
talked the other day and are having a follow-up conversation. Which I did think
added a really neat texture to the game. On a high level, who did I tend to
take was, often, who was I curious to have interact with one another; "how
do Fenris and Anders get along? Oh, they don't! Fair enough." Besides
providing entertainment and different experiences, there were also tactical
considerations. What class you played would affect who you bring along -- a
Mage obviously doesn't need both Anders and Merill.

1UP: For companions,
while people tend to like their banter, I'm noticing a common sentiment: That
people are a bit sad that they can't outfit their companion's armor anymore --
they can only upgrade it -- and it'd doubly odd that you can configure weapons and
accessories, but not armor. What's behind that decision?

ML: Well,
really, what we were looking for was the idea of stronger and more iconic
appearances for the followers. Ones that could change over time, like Aveline,
serve as a great example of story-driven progression; her role in the world is,
in a lot of ways, influencing her look. It also seemed something that would
address a concern that we had coming out of Origins, where the vast majority of
screenshots would have the party members looking almost identical. And so, you would
lose the distinctiveness of stuff like the Chantry robes that Leliana wore when
you first met her; or seeing Morrigan in any kind of Chantry robe just felt
wrong to us. Or worse was seeing Wynne in any of those "of the Witch"
outfits.

So we looked that and
asked ourselves if there's a way to give our companions a more distinct
silhouette, or more distinct body shape or stance or pose or equipment so they
stood out. So yes, I do think customization is really important to characters
and followers. So we explored options like upgrading them or being able to
increase their runeslots so that you can still interact with them to alter
things like fire resistance and so on -- in a way, you can change, and you
still had the amulets and the gems and so forth. Is it something we've seen a
lot of feedback on? Absolutely. Is it something we're going to look at in the
future? Sure -- nothing is set in stone. But what I do think was the success of
it was, when you think of Isabela, you don't think of "girl in generic leather
armor." When you think of Aveline, you think of her in her Captain's
Plate, and I think that gives the characters a bit more of an imprint in the
space they occupy mentally. But I don't think it's something we'll definitely
pursue in the future -- it's something we're going to evaluate and see if
there's a way we can get the best of both worlds. I certainly understand the
urge to outfit your characters. And we'd also have to look at the way it can
impact the looting mechanics.

1UP: For DA2's development
schedule, I've been reading some conflicting info, so let me get this clarified
once and for all: it's my understanding that DA2's development started before
DA Origins shipped, correct?

ML: Sure,
Dragon Age 2 was begun before Origins was release. Simply because the way
development works, there were staggered roll-offs from each department. The art
team had to be finished before the design team could do final lockdown who
themselves had to be finished before audio lockdown who had to be finished before
programming can lockdown and so on. So we began the process of Dragon Age 2
from the concept art level well before the release of Origins. Also, another
factor in that was simply, the content that we finished for PC was held until
the console version was released, so that we can release them all
simultaneously. So there was that additional block of months there. And so this
was us rolling into looking at the art style and doing some significant
overhauls there, and some significant overhauls to the way the combat system
works and plays out, the overall responsiveness of the engine from the ground
up, framerate, performance, DirectX 11, you name it.

1UP: Since Bioware
is known for taking consumer and critic feedback, and figuring out how to apply
the most useful data gathered for the next title, it makes me wonder: If DA2
started work before DAO went out there, how did you arrive at the decisions
that were made for developing DA2?

ML: That's
a hard question to answer, because that implies that decisions were made and
never revisited, which is absolutely not the case. We are constantly looking at
it. I would say some directional decisions were made, like looking at the
combat speed and responsiveness -- that was something that while we were
working on the consoles, we understood as, "wow, this really feels awkward
on the consoles." However, we wouldn't want to torpedo the overall control
scheme and the way it feels on PC, so is there a way to -- now that console and
PC are in harmony as top-of-mind -- see what steps we can take to increase the
overall speed and the way that characters execute the orders that I give, as
opposed to awkwardly waiting to get there. So some early decisions were made,
and certainly some visual decisions for overall style were made, in part
because we had a better understanding of the engine and how stylistic changes
could result in greater performance, archer combat, and so on. So they were
made early, and then evaluated again as we proceeded into Origins feedback and
so on.

1UP: So while
we're talking about development resources and decisions, I have to ask: Can you
also explain the process of why the dungeon assets seem to get re-used a lot?
That is one of the more prominent and universal sticking points from both
reviewers and consumers.

ML:
Absolutely, and I think it's a fair critique, and it's not one that I'm going
to leave unaddressed, frankly. What we ran into was the situation where we had
the ability to have more plots, more content, some side stuff that we knew
would be optional, but we didn't have the assets to create entirely new levels
for. So we took a long look at that, and said, "Is it important to have
more content in the game, or is it important that the content be 100-percent
unique?" So we tried to strike a balance, and tried to evaluate a good way
to use this. I think the one thing that caught us a little bit off-side was,
with the caves having much more interesting features than just "generic
cave with left bend," -- you know, having things like collapsed or old
masonry and so on -- is that end up probably creating a larger sense of
repetition than we thought would originally occur. And the end result is
something I look at and go, "Okay, I think that is a shame, and that is a
fair critique, and something we can easily address in the future."

1UP: Some people felt
that importing an Origins/Awakening save, while it made for fun
references and allusions, didn't seem as significant as taking a save from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2.
Now that there's a named protagonist and a cliffhanger ending, is it safe to
assume that a DA2 save would have a bigger effect on the next DA title? What's
your basic creed behind save importing for Dragon Age?

ML: It's a
philosophical approach, which basically says that regardless of character in
the game and so on, is that what we wanted to do was make sure that we brought
in information that felt sensible and natural for the game and for the context
of what we want to do. And one thing that, in my mind, sets Dragon Age apart
from what Mass Effect is doing -- not in a bad or good way, but just
"different" -- is that we look to Dragon Age as being about the
world, and the characters, places, times, and events that affect that world. As
opposed to a singular character, who in Shepard's case, dropkicks his world --
which is great.

But it does create a different
sort of focus, and your references earlier, Mass Effect and Baldur's Gate, are
about a character coming forward. And the simple truth is that characters have
much deeper connections and relationships with their past than what we are
tackling, which is the idea of, "okay, so Hawke lives in the same world as
the Warden -- a world affected by the Warden, but he or she isn't the
Warden." And so any time we went and added even more [Warden references],
it started to feel artificial. Like, why would people come up to talk to Hawke
about the Warden ad nauseam? References and appearances, like King Alistair --
or possibly not King Alistair depending on your save -- was something that
worked well within the context of this world. But if you had people
buddying-buddying based purely on the Warden, or you kept on getting gifts from
the Warden, that would feel a little artificial. That was something we avoided,
simply because it didn't work well.

1UP: What can you
say about DLC plans? Would it be more like Mass Effect, where it's Shepard
either adding a party member, or taking an existing party member through a new
quest? Or more like how Origins had some of that, but also DLC quests that were
side-stories with a completely different cast of characters, or a quest where
the Warden would be paired with new temporary party members rather than
familiar ones?

ML:
Absolutely. With Origins, we were being pretty experimental. DLC is still a
pretty new beast, and figuring out exactly how it integrates with the game is
something that, with Origins, we think led to becoming a pretty good success in
being a franchise that tells the story of a world. We wanted to see the
reactions to more experimental pieces like Leliana's Song; that provided a side
story on a popular follower -- a very popular follower -- but not a story that
directly involved your character. The takeaway, I think, is that people really
liked the elements of deepening Leliana's story -- they loved that! But what
they did not like was how their Warden was not included. Or things like how the
loot you get might have been brought in, but not the XP or skills or so on and
so forth. We kind of came away with the impression that consistency of experience
is something that people are desiring -- more so than just additional
storylines.

That's giving us more of a
direction; I think for future DLC you'll be seeing very much a focus on Hawke
and expanding his adventures -- whether it be across the timeline or extending
into the future. But definitely things that stay central to the character that
you've grown connected to, but still take some of those lessons like from
Leiliana's Song -- adding to the followers, making sure they're incorporated or
enhanced or deepened in some way -- is something that resonates really well.
Especially because the kind of people pulling down DLC are people who are
engaged with the story, or the party, or the history of the world, and they
want to learn or know more; and maybe feel like they have this cool piece of
knowledge that their friends might not know. It's like that fun little bit of
trivia that you looked up just before the party.



1UP: It's safe to
say that there was a lot of people who expected "Origins 2," and to
have more of Origins' gameplay (which in itself hearkens back to Baldur's Gate 2's
gameplay). Dragon Age 2 is obviously not that; it's you taking RPGs in a
different direction. In light of that, I'm curious: do you think there's still
room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the
modern marketplace?

ML: It
presents an intriguing thought experiment: is it viable to have a game that's
closer to Baldur's Gate 2 in terms of the raw mechanics and execution? I don't
think there's anything preventing it. However, I do think that, as a genre, if
RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I know people yell at me for daring
to use the word "evolve" -- but if they can't change or experiment,
then the genre itself is going to stagnate. Not only in terms of mechanics,
like in rehashes and stuff, which I think we mostly manage to avoid, but the
bigger problem is that if we don't have RPGs that present a different type of
experience, then we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who
enjoy just that experience, and we drive others away.

In of itself, that runs the
risk of genre death -- it becomes too referential or too reliant on people
understanding that STR means strength which feeds into accuracy which results
in damage done, and so on. You end up in a case where, the genre eventually
burns out, or falls flat, or becomes too risky to take any risks in
development, and so on and so forth, and that's not something I want to see
happen.

So with Dragon Age 2,
our goal was to look at the experience of Origins, which I'm very proud to have
worked on, and look at how elements like the initial presentation, the start of
the game, the overall feel of "when do statistics first show up?" and
make sure that they're there -- absolutely there and absolutely part of the
game. But that they're not there in a way that's imposing if you never played
an RPG before. Because, as an RPG veteran going back to Ultima III, it's easy
to forget how much of a hurdle there is when you first start into games of this
complexity. And so we wanted to try to create an opening experience that helps
bring you into the complexity -- how to do cross-class combos or bringing in
specializations at level seven -- so that there was mastery to be had rather
than a frontloaded, kind of daunting experience. So I think there is absolutely
room to make an isometric six-player tactical combat RPG, but we shouldn't only
be making those. Because if we do, we're going to get very self-referential,
and potentially not see any RPGs coming out in the future.

1UP: So here's the time
travel question: if you had a machine, let's say a DeLorean, and you were able
to go back and do the whole development process all over again, but you can
change just one, maybe two, things, what would they be?

ML:
Presuming that I retain what I know now for this do-over, the awareness of the
reuse of areas is probably one of the key things -- using that more artfully
would certainly be key. If I was going to "tweak" anything, then
probably some of the elements of pacing at the beginning of the game. The
urgency of drawing you into the expedition would have been something that I
would have looked at and re-structure the overall pacing of. Because I think
some people felt a little bit detached because, frankly, it's not a game
without a big looming evil dragon, demon, or demigod at the end; which creates
an almost unexpected story mechanic, and one that I'm honestly very proud to
have tried, and think we managed to break the mold with a reasonable degree of
success. I think there are probably better ways to deliver that and look at the
pacing and so on. There has never been a game that I've worked on yet where I
wouldn't say, "You know, we probably and with perfect hindsight, could
have done a better job with the pacing." That's the nature of story-based
gaming, or RPGs, in a lot of ways. You pretty much find almost every RPG
designer saying that same thing. So those two are probably my hot dynamics, but
the simple truth, when you have things that make you go, "if I could go
back, I would do this," then you immediately start staring forward and
say, "Great, so these are lessons to be learned for the future. We can do
this better."

1UP: Random last
question: what part of the Dragon Age world is more interesting to explore, the
Tevinter Imperium, or Orlais, or what?

ML: I
think, probably, currently, that Orlais is more fascinating simply because
we've seen more of it. We've seen more hints, heard more stories from Leliana,
and Orlais has just teased us more. It's been more coquettish -- we've seen the
ankle and we want to see what's above it. So to me, Orlais is the one that has
a ton of draw and really will intrigue people. Because it is a fascinating
culture, and similar to how the Qunari are very different from Ferelden or
Kirkwall, Orlais offers up another slice of the world. And recall that I said
that Dragon Age is about the world. So it's something that, I think people are
rightfully intrigued by, and it's something that as a design team, intrigues us
too.

Though, what's also interesting
is to see how, every once in a while, people gloms on to how interesting Rivain
is. It's where the Qunari invaded, and at least half of the Rivaini have
converted to the Qun, which results in an interesting cultural situation. Also,
pirates. So for me, Dragon Age's two core strengths are: on the gameplay side,
it's about the party, working together, to achieve a kind of tactical mastery
-- that's something that I think is key to the Dragon Age franchise. From a
world perspective, these are living breathing countries to the point where I
have a four-foot wide map of the continent hanging in my living room, and often
find myself staring at different geographic regions going, "yeah, we can
absolutely go there."

 

[djackson75]

I made this thread 20 minutes plus ago and it isn't showing up on the message board... What is going on?
Edit: responding to it made it show up... this message board is weird.

Modifié par djackson75, 20 mars 2011 - 01:05 .

[Il Divo]

Good interview. I really liked his reply regarding how Orsino/Meredith were handled. And looking back, it actually makes alot of sense.

[Medhia Nox]

Then why didn't you give us "Pro-Order" - I would have sided with Aveline in a heartbeat and laid the smackdown on both the mages and the Templars.

No - you gave us Anders stealing the show. This is all prologue material. "Anders blew up the Chantry - the nations of Thedas are in turmoil - and Hawke was helpless to stop any of it... but here's your chance..."

Yeah, I know - that's coming in the expansion. Well, I didn't pay 60$ to play a prologue to the real story.

[Massefeckt]

1UP: It's safe to
say that there was a lot of people who expected "Origins 2," and to
have more of Origins' gameplay (which in itself hearkens back to Baldur's Gate 2's
gameplay). Dragon Age 2 is obviously not that; it's you taking RPGs in a
different direction. In light of that, I'm curious: do you think there's still
room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the
modern marketplace?

ML: It
presents an intriguing thought experiment: is it viable to have a game that's
closer to Baldur's Gate 2 in terms of the raw mechanics and execution? I don't
think there's anything preventing it. However, I do think that, as a genre, if
RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I know people yell at me for daring
to use the word "evolve" -- but if they can't change or experiment,
then the genre itself is going to stagnate. Not only in terms of mechanics,
like in rehashes and stuff, which I think we mostly manage to avoid, but the
bigger problem is that if we don't have RPGs that present a different type of
experience, then we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who
enjoy just that experience, and we drive others away.

In of itself, that runs the
risk of genre death -- it becomes too referential or too reliant on people
understanding that STR means strength which feeds into accuracy which results
in damage done, and so on. You end up in a case where, the genre eventually
burns out, or falls flat, or becomes too risky to take any risks in
development, and so on and so forth, and that's not something I want to see
happen.

So with Dragon Age 2,
our goal was to look at the experience of Origins, which I'm very proud to have
worked on, and look at how elements like the initial presentation, the start of
the game, the overall feel of "when do statistics first show up?" and
make sure that they're there -- absolutely there and absolutely part of the
game. But that they're not there in a way that's imposing if you never played
an RPG before. Because, as an RPG veteran going back to Ultima III, it's easy
to forget how much of a hurdle there is when you first start into games of this
complexity. And so we wanted to try to create an opening experience that helps
bring you into the complexity -- how to do cross-class combos or bringing in
specializations at level seven -- so that there was mastery to be had rather
than a frontloaded, kind of daunting experience. So I think there is absolutely
room to make an isometric six-player tactical combat RPG, but we shouldn't only
be making those. Because if we do, we're going to get very self-referential,
and potentially not see any RPGs coming out in the future.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats a very long way of saying "Screw the fanbase we want more money!" Nothing wrong with a company wanting to make more money but at least be upfront about it don't give a long winded statement trying to make excuses about it.

[Jackel159357]

But if they make every RPG like mass effect would that not have the same results?

Modifié par Jackel159357, 20 mars 2011 - 01:24 .

[Jman5]

*SPOILERS*

Il Divo wrote...

Good interview. I really liked his reply regarding how Orsino/Meredith were handled. And looking back, it actually makes alot of sense.

While I understand the reasoning, I didn't like the execution. I feel like they could have gotten the point across without it being so in your face with abomination/insanity.

In my mind it would have been far better if the negative consequences for siding with the mages or templars was played out in the concluding story. Show Meredith butchering helpless mages and their family. Have Orsino take control of the city only to take it down the path of the Tevinter Imperium. Or have him lock up the templar in the same way the templar locked up the mages.

[Merced652]

Jackel159357 wrote...

But if they make every RPG like mass effect would that not have the same results?

I felt this way too, he was saying one thing and i was like but aren't you risking genre death anyway? The comments on that interview are also hilarious. I love gamers.

Modifié par Merced652, 20 mars 2011 - 01:38 .

[djackson75]

Jman5 wrote...

*SPOILERS*

Il Divo wrote...

Good interview. I really liked his reply regarding how Orsino/Meredith were handled. And looking back, it actually makes alot of sense.

While I understand the reasoning, I didn't like the execution. I feel like they could have gotten the point across without it being so in your face with abomination/insanity.

In my mind it would have been far better if the negative consequences for siding with the mages or templars was played out in the concluding story. Show Meredith butchering helpless mages and their family. Have Orsino take control of the city only to take it down the path of the Tevinter Imperium. Or have him lock up the templar in the same way the templar locked up the mages.

If you think people are complaining that the game ended on a cliffhanger as it is... If you went with THAT ending, I think this message board would spontaneously combust with the "HOW DARE YOU END IT LIKE THAT I'M NOT BUYING THE DLC JUST TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUTTTTTTTTTT NERDRAGEQUIT!!!".

[MonkeyLungs]

I can't speak for all RPG'amers out there but for myself I enjoy learning a new RPG system. The more stats, rules, and nuances to be learned the better. Figuring out the game system, digging into the stats and yes even re-rolling characters several times to figure out what works and what doesn't is part of the fun to me.

[maladictor2009]

Alot came out of his mouth, but he says very little.

DA2 is the prologue to a game. Its short like an expansion and lots of material were copied off the first game. And the story just screams ("BUY THE NEXT GAME IN 30 DAYS ")

[Merced652]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I can't speak for all RPG'amers out there but for myself I enjoy learning a new RPG system. The more stats, rules, and nuances to be learned the better. Figuring out the game system, digging into the stats and yes even re-rolling characters several times to figure out what works and what doesn't is part of the fun to me.

I agree with this aswell, i can't even count the times i rerolled between NWN and NWN2 trying to max out a powerbuild or make a really solid rp build that campaigned well. Apparently all of that is a barrier to entry though. <_<

[djackson75]

maladictor2009 wrote...

Alot came out of his mouth, but he says very little.

DA2 is the prologue to a game. Its short like an expansion and lots of material were copied off the first game. And the story just screams ("BUY THE NEXT GAME IN 30 DAYS ")

Short like an expansion? I beat "witch hunt" in like 3 hours... It took me 34 hours to beat DA2.. Even the speed completionists had a 15 hour experience... 
The Empire Strikes Back ended on a cliffhanger... Nothing was resolved in that movie, and it basically was a set up for Jedi.... And it was also heralded as the best of all the Star Wars movies...

[Romantiq]

Good read indeed.

Modifié par Romantiq, 20 mars 2011 - 01:49 .

[Razaroh]

Jman5 wrote...

*SPOILERS*

While I understand the reasoning, I didn't like the execution. I feel like they could have gotten the point across without it being so in your face with abomination/insanity.

In my mind it would have been far better if the negative consequences for siding with the mages or templars was played out in the concluding story. Show Meredith butchering helpless mages and their family. Have Orsino take control of the city only to take it down the path of the Tevinter Imperium. Or have him lock up the templar in the same way the templar locked up the mages.

Eh, that puts them both on the path of 'Look Ma, IMMA VILLIAN!', which I thought the game tried to avoid. Meredith gets a nice Tyrant comment and we see Orsino pushed to his breaking point. The problem with the end is that it's rushed. We spent the whole game watching the Templar vs Mage conflict build up but knew little of those behind the factions. Spending just a little more time with either would have done wonders for the third act.

[Insom]

Something bugs me about the Orsino part. This guy is the First Enchanter of the circle, he's supposed to be better than that. These guys are supposed to be the most powerful guys in the circle with the willpower and leadership to resist anything. We saw Irving resist Uldred and demons in the fade in Ferelden and willingly give himself up to the Templars if it came to that.

[Il Divo]

Jman5 wrote...

While I understand the reasoning, I didn't like the execution. I feel like they could have gotten the point across without it being so in your face with abomination/insanity.

In my mind it would have been far better if the negative consequences for siding with the mages or templars was played out in the concluding story. Show Meredith butchering helpless mages and their family. Have Orsino take control of the city only to take it down the path of the Tevinter Imperium. Or have him lock up the templar in the same way the templar locked up the mages.

That definitely would have been interesting as a final result, but I think what we are given worked to a degree. If there is one thing I would change; the structure of the boss battle. Instead of fighting one boss after another, I feel like that sense of Orsino/Meredith destroying each other would have been stronger if we had the opportunity to fight both simultaneously, reinforcing that message that they caused each other's downfall.

[Il Divo]

Insom wrote...

Something bugs me about the Orsino part. This guy is the First Enchanter of the circle, he's supposed to be better than that. These guys are supposed to be the most powerful guys in the circle with the willpower and leadership to resist anything. We saw Irving resist Uldred and demons in the fade in Ferelden and willingly give himself up to the Templars if it came to that.

 It also wasn't fully certain whether Gregoir was going to allow the Rite of Annulment. In the case of Kirkwall, it's a pretty clear-cut genocide. I'd also say that Irving and Orsino are two entirely different people, with very different reactions.

[Romantiq]

Insom wrote...

Something bugs me about the Orsino part. This guy is the First Enchanter of the circle, he's supposed to be better than that. These guys are supposed to be the most powerful guys in the circle with the willpower and leadership to resist anything. We saw Irving resist Uldred and demons in the fade in Ferelden and willingly give himself up to the Templars if it came to that.

Perhaps all the mages diying around him and clear uncertainty of mages future caused that. He also mentioned someone's research and how it was evil before he turned.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Does Jeff Green still work at 1UP?

[Insom]

Il Divo wrote...

 It also wasn't fully certain whether Gregoir was going to allow the Rite of Annulment. In the case of Kirkwall, it's a pretty clear-cut genocide. I'd also say that Irving and Orsino are two entirely different people, with very different reactions.

The way it was handled was odd though. Hawke just takes out like 30 Templars easily and then it switches to this scene where Orsino flips out. If he waited a little longer everything would have been okay.

[Teddie Sage]

At least, he pretty much confirms an expansion for Hawke's journey and his companions. I'm glad.

[Lukertin]

MonkeyLungs wrote...
I can't speak for all RPG'amers out there but for myself I enjoy learning a new RPG system. The more stats, rules, and nuances to be learned the better. Figuring out the game system, digging into the stats and yes even re-rolling characters several times to figure out what works and what doesn't is part of the fun to me.

Stat/Rule systems should be simple and easy to understand so people don't have to reroll their character 5 times at the start because they did the wrong things due to a lack of understanding.

[Razaroh]

Insom wrote...

The way it was handled was odd though. Hawke just takes out like 30 Templars easily and then it switches to this scene where Orsino flips out. If he waited a little longer everything would have been okay.

Just moments earlier we saw the Templars slaughtering the mages. Plus Story and Gameplay segregation. Hawke (any Bioware main character) can do things no normal person could because of it. Meredith calls you out on this in one of the endings.

[Il Divo]

Insom wrote...

The way it was handled was odd though. Hawke just takes out like 30 Templars easily and then it switches to this scene where Orsino flips out. If he waited a little longer everything would have been okay.

The big issue I would say is that in 'flipping out' Orsino claims to do this to spite Meredith....yet, all he managed to accomplish was give us an extra boss battle, without even taking out Meredith. This certainly had me go 'wtf' for a moment.