Aucune réponse 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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b]



 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?[/b]



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.





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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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.[/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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.[/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b][/b]



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?[/b]



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?[/b]



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


I made this thread yesterday with this interview, but the original interview has game spoilers, which were disucssed in the thread... then the thread was moved out of this forum. I have removed the spoilers and hope to keep it here, so please, can we keep this thread to the interview itself. Thanks.