“I think ultimately, the framed narrative does a very good job of two things: one, it tells the story in a different way…So the framed narrative was something that mechanically helped us to create a sense of curiosity –“
A framed narrative was used for Leliana’s DLC for the original Origins. The reason that it worked, for me, is that I already knew Leliana’s ultimate fate (I had determined it prior to her tale). I had come to know her as an individual, and also had emotional invested in her, prior to revealing her back story. The issue with Hawke is that I had never come to know him/her prior to the game. A framed narrative is difficult to pull off in the media arts.
“…and kind of like Schrodinger's Cat, you may never actually know how much of that was entirely true…”
Why would ML compare a quantum physics thought experiment (incorrectly) in relation to this game? The original though experiment was to point out problems with quantum entanglement, especially with the blur. The actual wave function means that there is a 50/50 chance that the cat is alive. Looking at Winger’s Friend thought experiment also highlights the subjectivity of probability. If I flip a coin, let’s say, and look at the results, I know with 100% what the outcome is. If I ask you what the outcome is, you have a 50% probability of guessing what the outcome is… but I digress.
“Well, really, what we were looking for was the idea of stronger and more iconic appearances for the followers…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…it's something we're going to evaluate and see if there's a way we can get the best of both worlds.”
Just because he didn’t like how I dressed my characters, he decided to change it? Black Isle did the distinctive look with PS:T back in 1999 by having character specific armor that could be equipped. It 1) Keeps the distinctive look and 2) enables me to customize (to a degree) my companion armor.
“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 really don’t see where there was more content at the expense of level design. Between FO3 and FO:NV, there was a 24 month gap between release cycles 10/08-10/10, while between DA:O and DA:II, there was 15 months between releases 11/09-3/11. FO:NV provided just as much gameplay, and depth as the original, with a shorter development cycle, while not having the same exact level design used multiple times. Sure there were re-used assets, but they were disguised in a way to make them look somewhat different from each other.
“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.”
Regarding RPG evolution: There is a difference between evolution and hybridization. If you look at something like the Gold box vs. the infinity engine, that was an evolution, as was the infinity engine vs. the Aurora engine, and the Aurora engine vs. the Eclipse engine. Also there was an evolution between the rules from D&D 2.5 to D&D 3.0 to a non D&D related set of rules. DA II uses the Unreal 3 engine (the same one used for the ME series). The basic tropes of the RPG remain. If you look at something like Morrowind vs. Oblivion or Fallout 1/2 vs. Fallout 3, there are evolutions, but there is also a strong design philosophy. For Morrowind and Oblivion, it is open world, dark fantasy, with a vast number of side quests (large and small). For the Fallout series, there is the post apocalyptic setting, dark humor, and the multiple ways of resolving issues. Both of those games also have moral ambiguity and player choice. Even the sandbox games, like GTA:IV and RDR have strong design decisions that build on their predecessors’ strengths, rather than divorcing themselves from them
Hybridization of genres can lead to a synergy, but more often than not results in a product that is inferior to either. Look at a mule. It’s neither a donkey or a horse. Sure it’s an animal you can ride, but it’s mostly sterile.
“In of itself, that runs the risk of genre death…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.. 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.”
First, I think that this shows a bit of contempt for the RPG fanbase, by saying basically, “Computer RPG gamers hate change, they want the same thing over and over,” which is untrue, overly broad and honestly, somewhat offensive to me. Nobody asked for an isometric six-player tactical RPG. Change is not inherently bad, but a strong sense of design is vital. There are genres of games for a reason; it makes it easier to select the game I want to play. If a game is labeled as a 4X, I don’t want to play a FPS, if a game is marketed as a RPG, I don’t want to play a TPS. If a game is sold as a RTS, I don’t want to play a RPG. By strongly identifying with the genre, the customer knows what they are buying, both good and bad, however, some of the most successful games. Look at the sales figures for DA:O, FO3, Starcraft II, etc. One of the things that keep genre’s alive is the gaming community: Releasing tools to modify the game, mods, tweaks, after market community patches etc. Heck, some games have a 10-20 year play life due to all of the consumer created content.
“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.”
Not all games have to have a “big looming evil dragon, demon or demigod at the end.” This statement is, I feel, again somewhat contemptuous of the RPG audience by making a broad generalization of the genre. Going back to PS:T, that is about as personal a story that can be told, “What can change the nature of a man?” In general, what I’ve found, is that what makes an RPG great to me is coming from humble origins, who gets swept up in great events, and developing my avatar into someone who shapes the world around them. What I saw in DA II was a person of humble origins, who goes out and does a bunch of “side quests” (which are necessary to meet the requirements of the main quest), and we jump forward 3 years while people talk about how awesome I’ve become. The cardinal rule in movies is “don’t tell, show.” One of the cardinal rules in RPGs, I believe, is “don’t tell or show, let me do it.”
“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.”
Tactical mastery and party control are certainly big factor, but primarily focus on combat and are really about game mechanics less than gameplay, which could be a reason that DA II is so combat focused. I think from a gameplay perspective, the most important thing for me is the connection between me and the game, the ability to dramatically effect the outcome of the game, overcoming challenges in multiple ways, and not because I wield the biggest stick, my connection to the plot, etc. Tactical combat is important to me, yes, but secondary to the overall experience.
“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,”
I felt that Kirkwall was an extremely empty and stagnant place. It wasn’t living or breathing to me. During the course of the game, nothing felt changed. There was no day/night cycle (a toggle? Really?), no weather, the NPCs didn’t feel like they had lives outside the game. I also didn’t feel that I was part of a massive world. With only a limited number of places to explore outside of Kirkwall I felt confined to the point of claustrophobia.
Well, that’s my 2 cents.
Modifié par TheKnave69, 22 mars 2011 - 03:43 .
Retour en haut
