mrcrusty wrote...
the_one_54321 wrote...
AAHook2 wrote...
...
mrcrusty wrote...
...
Good detailed stuff, guys. Do you think you could condense this into a list of specific mechanical features?
IMO, the mechanics matter less than the design and execution. See: Witcher 2.
That's why it's difficult to quantify them or be precise with them.
But some essential ones for me would be:
- Non-combat or extracurricular skills. Not only do they provide for different ways of playing, they are great for roleplaying.
- Skill checks. Skill checks are a mechanic in which a player's choices in character development are honored. Whether this means your diplomatic character talks down a group of bandits or whether your expert trap making character is able to help/mislead a certain NPC who is having trouble making them.
I loved Coersion, Stealing, Mechanical expertise, poison making...
My first magic narrative moment in Origins was when I managed to talk down the werewolves and resolve the conflict relatively peacefully...It was all about my coersion skill and even intimidate skill. The wereolves stopped to talk to me because I was a dwarf and I apparently had a fierce reputation. Their first option was to talk and then run away from me. I loved that.
- Reputation. Something that would add a lot to Dragon Age especially if future games are factional. Fallout: New Vegas demonstrates this very well. If you've been killing Legion soldiers all day in the open, you can't access the Legion's quests. They hate you. Similarly, you may get extra rewards, bonuses and quests from the NCR. It also allows the player to shape the narrative. I have heard people going about Dragon Age 2 "But I've been with Templars/Mages all along, why the hell do they need to ask me which side I'm on?!?"
With a reputation system, the game tracks your decisions and doesn't ask you, because it knows what side you've chosen.
I like this idea to be implemented in Dragon Age. I played a Dwarf in Origins, and I was delighted that for the most part almost everyone who had dialogue had a mention that I was a dwarf and it affected the way they treated me. It carried a certain reputation to be a Dwarf which was very engrossing. It made the adventure sing a little more.
I was stunned to realize in Dragon Age 2, a random encounter couldn't even recognize that you were a Mage after you basically set people on fire and threw them around like ragdolls not 10 feet from them, yet they seemed to be able to smell a blood mage without even having seen them use magic.
I think this needs to be fixed. Origins seemed to track all of your ongoing actions, what you said to someone specifically, where you were at in that quest, if it had been completed or needed something done cross it off. I think this needs to go further in that if you can have a record of things you have done, how you reacted to something or what choices resulted in changing something of consequence...characters around you should be able to note what your alignment is and indeed form a reputation for your lead character.
- Choices and Consequences. Everyone (including myself) harps on about this, it's self explanatory.
- Open Exploration. While I don't think we should have Elder Scrolls level open world, I do think having a more open aspect would definitely be appreciated as opposed to the linear level designs Bioware games have. I think taking a look at say, the forest outside Flotsam in Witcher 2 and comparing it to the Brecilian Forest in Origins would be a good way to see the differences in how things are set out.
I agree with you on this MrCrusty. I think one of the ways to stay open, but keep things tight is to be able to go to most places in the map, but to install certain checks on time as well as order of operations for lack of a better term.
In DA 2 you would see the same map layout for an area, but inexplicably a door would be closed or a hallway blocked off. The part that bothers you is that it isn't explained. You just have to assume that there's a reason, mostly coming to the conclusion that you have to be at a certain point of the story to access this portion of the map. It's a total immersion breaker!
The solution is relatively simple as it's been done in so many games, other RPGs. In Fable for example, there's usually a brief expository note as to why you can't go somewhere at a certain point in the plot or timeline of events. It's fine. You can accept that. At least it's explained somehow.
In a lot of ways the fact that the narrative informs you of a change in the environment, blocking progress in certain maps, this actually deepens the RPG feel. If you suddenly can't access a region because you did not complete a quest or lack an item or havn't crossed a checkpoint in the narrative and must do something to remedy this lack...or you simply cannot because of the choices you made...That's an RPG. The choices you make change what you can do or have access to.
It's a very simple concept. It's hardly groundbreaking.
In Fable 2 I was so impressed when I'd make a choice and 10 years later, I see the fruit of my choice in the expansion of or the destruction of a town or area. In Dragon Age 2, when it was announced that a similar time shift would be present, I was overjoyed.
I thought what was lacking in Origins was a real sense of time being tracked, feeling the weeks wear on my character and his companions. How long it would actually take to travel from Orzammar to Denerim. How this sense of time management effected the flow of the narrative. In Origins, it really didn't effect much of anything if I chose one mission over the other and the order in which I did it. It really was counterintuitive to say leave Redcliffe after defeating the undead, skip the Circle after promising to bring help, clear two other areas, THEN go to the circle and return to Redcliff as if that only took 3 days...When Dragon Age 2 came out, I thought that the emphasis on time passing would solve this break in narrative logic. Well, I was wrong.
I think you as a player should be free to choose where to go and what to do, but as Crusty says, your decisions, and choices should be honored. If failing to do something in time or leaving something undone causes consequences which change the story, SO BE IT.
Missing something actually adds detail in this case. It adds replayability.
A Fable 2 spoiler ****
For example if you failed to invest in a certain town in Fable 2, the whole region sort of goes to the dogs...kind of literally. In the exrtreme, if you killed everyone in a town, that place beccomes a haunted region with all sorts of interesting developments over time.
In Origins, part of what made the game so appealing was the fact that you had to make investments in your relationships if you wanted to get somewhere with them.
As soon as I was able to figure it all out, I wanted to romance both Morrigan and Liliana, but in a certain order, the end result being that I would get both love endings in the epilogue. It really became the game within the game and it added hours of fun and frustration to run of the game. I also like the concept of hardening your companions or changing their outlook.
I really think Bioware went away from making the game about investing into these elements for a later payoff. You invested in a romance with Morrigan, because it added depth and context to the end of the game. You invested in being a persuasive character or a good thief, because it changed the way you played the game and it added context to the end.
The story is not necessarily the "End" you use "means" to get to. Philosphically, if the journey is unique because the player conciously wanted it to be, that's basically an RPG. Play it the way you want it to be. Seek out an end on your own terms.
It's not enough that you should physically look different at the end of a long journey. You ARE different. You can feel it and it's usually in a way you didn't expect to feel the difference nor planned to. But you did plan, and that's what's special. That's the surprise.
Good discussion folks.
Retour en haut
