19 réponses à ce sujet

[Dasher1010]

I'd personally like to see more branching story paths along the lines of what The Witcher 2 did. There was more than one great RPG than Skyrim this year.

[John Epler]

Gunderic wrote...

But... the Witcher 2 has your PC (a man) sleeping with women... and you can't do the opposite! Wouldn't saying that they're looking at the Witcher 2 aggressively anger the uber-feminists that sometimes lurk and post here?

Those pesky uber feminists and their desire for equal and fair representation in popular media. Where will their madness end?

On a less snarky note - we look to all games for inspiration. However, it's not a matter of saying 'Holy crap, Skyrim sold how many copies? We have to DO WHAT THEY DID.' Our approach and Bethesda's approach certainly overlap in some areas, but our focus and their focus are different. Instead, we'll play a game and look at what it did well, then figure out why that particular feature or aspect of the game was so positively received.

A lot of game design is understanding how people think. And if you can understand why a particular feature is looked at so positively, you can work backwards and apply those lessons to your own games. Not always successfully, of course, but that's the general idea.

[John Epler]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I don't think your approaches overlap at all, as the games are so ridiculously different they may aswell be different genres.

I suggest you look at that pesky TW2 that doesn't represent equal rights for everyone. Sure it's realistic in it's representation of Medieval equality, but please don't let that deter you. I'm sure you guys can find someway to incorporate every little population niche out there while still being inspired by it.

And that's the prerogative of The Witcher 2. They've chosen to go for a realistic view of gender politics in that particular period in history, and I certainly don't think it's any less valid of an approach - for many, this somewhat more 'real world' approach has a lot of appeal. And I'm glad! The more variety out there, the more likely that everyone will find something to their taste.

However, that particular goal has never been something we've ever shown much interest in, so it seems rather silly to chide us for not succeeding at something we've never made any suggestion that we were attempting, doesn't it? It's been rather clear since the beginning that inclusivity regardless of gender or sexual orientation is significantly higher on our list of priorities than accurately simulating medieval Europe.

[John Epler]

simfamSP wrote...

What I think a lot of people misunderstand (including me) is to why are you looking at sources of inspiration? Bioware have been making the best games since Baldur's gate, all you have to do is look at yourselves.

But granted, I'm not part of the group that ignorantly thinks that by looking at Skyrim your going to make an open world RPG, that's just ludicrous. Nor do I understand the major principles of game design. But by your example, it's a clear conclusion no? When people have been screaming 'more DA:O' 'more BG' 'more...etc...' it's clear that what they want is more of you guys and gals at Bioware. Though I'm guessing your understand that :-) and you certainly are. There is no harm in looking at other games because the Bioware formula could use a Beth touch (NPCs that react to you for example.)

Well, here's an example. When looking at Skyrim, it's obvious that the open world approach appeals to a lot of people. Yet what, specifically, is it about that style of game that people like? Personally, I'd argue that a lot of it comes down to the open world allowing for the creation of a highly immersive experience - it's the feeling that you're in a 'real world', with everything that entails. So then, the question becomes, how can you achieve something similar in a more linear, BioWare-style game? And there are certainly things that can be done without taking away from the things that we are, generally, known for.

As to why we look elsewhere instead of just at our own games, well, we do look at our own games. We look at everything we've ever done and pick it apart. While I understand there's a persistent belief among some forum members that we're convinced of our own infallibility, I doubt you'll find anyone who's more critical (and note that I'm saying critical rather than insulting) of any product than the people who've worked on it. We know every flaw, and we know how we've tried to address them.

But we're certainly not going to suggest that there is nothing we can learn from other games. There are things that other companies have done better than we have. And, of course, there are lessons to be learned insofar as what not to do, but every developer has something that they wish they'd done differently. I know I would've handled at least a few major scenes in DA2 differently in hind sight. But still, I think it's worth at least looking at what everyone else in the industry is doing and seeing what lessons we can apply to our own projects.

I apologize for rambling a bit towards the end. Getting a little tired, but still awake due to too much coffee.

[John Epler]

HiroVoid wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

TW2 has sold like 300k units, Skyrim has sold 10million+

Don't get your hopes up.

Those are 300K in PC sales.  Digital download sales are not included and that's where the majority of the Witcher sales come from.  From what I read (forget where) TW 2 has sold over 1M.

Of course, that doesn't compare to Skyrim's sales, but then nothing really does.

Once TW series starts moving to consoles as well, it'll probably get a big boost to sales as well.

@JohnEpler I would probably say having NPCS around towns and villages actually moving around and feeling like they're part of the world rather than just being in it would be a good start.  Basically, program them to have their own lives rather than just being part of the scenery.  I feel that's at least one of the major immersions.  I don't know if it would be possible to include with everything else, but I think cutting out on some cinematic scenes for that would be a good exchange.

And more intelligent and 'life like' ambient behaviour is definitely something we're looking into for future projects. Giving NPCs their own schedules and lives, within certain boundaries, is one of the best ways to make a world feel 'alive'. Even if it's as simple as saying 'when event X happens within Y number of meters, do Z', and then having several sets of those behaviour - if they react to outside stimulus it helps lessen the feeling that you're playing a game that's divided into distinct parts, such as exploration, combat, etc.

We have a lot of ideas on how to improve this aspect in future titles. There's not a lot I can say about it regarding specifics, of course - but we're certainly aware that it's a high priority for a lot of people.

[Mike Laidlaw]

JohnEpler wrote...
And more intelligent and 'life like' ambient behaviour is definitely something we're looking into for future projects. Giving NPCs their own schedules and lives, within certain boundaries, is one of the best ways to make a world feel 'alive'. Even if it's as simple as saying 'when event X happens within Y number of meters, do Z', and then having several sets of those behaviour - if they react to outside stimulus it helps lessen the feeling that you're playing a game that's divided into distinct parts, such as exploration, combat, etc.

We have a lot of ideas on how to improve this aspect in future titles. There's not a lot I can say about it regarding specifics, of course - but we're certainly aware that it's a high priority for a lot of people.

It's worth noting that I have a deeply allergic reaction to not being able to buy or sell things due to schedules. I don't like it when the "sim" gets in the way of my gameplay. Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

Of course, that would be supposing a day/night cycle, and that's just crazy talk. Right?

[Mike Laidlaw]

Dasher1010 wrote...

I'd personally like to see more branching story paths along the lines of what The Witcher 2 did. There was more than one great RPG than Skyrim this year.

A significant number of the design team have played, enjoyed and considered Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR and we've even been taking a look at some of the indie titles out there like Avadon (and even Aralon, on the iOs, which is pretty damn good, if you have the hardware).

Some of us have even taken a big 'ol swing through DA:O, DAII and the BG series.

Every RPG has pros and cons, and great ideas. I believe the reason Ray brought up Skyrim specifically is that he's very much a fan of certain elements of "openness" that he may or may not have been exposed to before that interview.

I can say no more.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

A significant number of the design team have played, enjoyed and considered Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR and we've even been taking a look at some of the indie titles out there like Avadon (and even Aralon, on the iOs, which is pretty damn good, if you have the hardware).

Oh, and Dark Souls. Dear god, Dark Souls. I think timing the blades in Sen's Fortress may have broken a part of my soul, and I beat Demon's.

And then someone tells me Anor Londo is going to be worse. *sigh*

Still, Dark Souls is an exceptional example of atmosphere, mood and unquestionably clever level design.

[Mike Laidlaw]

As to my thoughts on why I would prefer a "night guy" over "the store closes and you have to wait is because I tend to see four ways to deal with the latter:

1. You have to wait for time to pass. Perhaps you go do something else, perhaps you just stare at the screen, but time? It moves on its own.
2. You have to go somewhere to make time pass. Perhaps an inn, where you sleep and it becomes morning.
3. You "wait" and time passes around you. (as seen in skyrim/Fallout)
4. The store or service you need doesn't close, but who you deal with changes in some way (aka: "the night guy comes on shift" or "an alternative, nearby service opens up, offered by another guy...in an alley or something")

They all have perfectly valid rationales in a scheduled game.
1 is realistic, and borders on simulation, but may significantly impact the "flow" of your gaming if you absolutely need to interact with that service to progress.
2 maps well to our real world experience, in that to "advance time" we need to, typically, go to bed, but asks the player to travel, and potentially area-transition.
3 is exceptionally convenient in that you don't have to move/load, but breaks some degree of immersion in that you wonder if your character was standing perfectly still for that entire period of time.
4. Ensures the service is available and doesn't require travel time/loads, but does make less sense in a medieval world than it does in our night-shift society.

So, they're all fine, I just happen to prefer 4, because I happen to consider it the least disruptive to immersion. 

Largely an academic discussion at the moment, but since someone asked, there you go!

[John Epler]

craigdolphin wrote...

Personally, I'd agree with ML that #4 is maybe the best of the options. But I'd differentiate between 'some other guy in the same shop' and 'a different shop opens in an alley while this one is closed'.

With imagination, the latter could easily be made to work well with the medieval setting without sacrificing immersion. It would add diversity to the night/day experience too.

The former...well, it would strike me as VERY odd in a medieval town/village that 24 hour a day retail service is common. Even today, it's not always the case and we have artifical lighting etc.

People forget that candles/lantern oil etc were not trivially cheap consumables back in the day. And why would people open a shop at night when almost everybody up at that hour would be either a criminal or a guard? That said, I suspect it could be made to work either way. I'm just saying that I would think 24 hour a day shopping should be the exception rather than the rule in the event day/night cycles were brought in. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

I don't think it'd be a stretch to suggest that certain vendors (like you said, in an alley or similar) might keep irregular hours. I think the primary concern is not 'let's make sure that the experience is exactly the same in the daytime or the night time', but rather 'let's make sure that the player has access to similar experiences regardless of the time of day'. Night time should be different from day time - in game play as well as in general atmosphere. However, there's a distinction to be made between 'it's night time, so everything is closed and all you can do is wander around the town, gazing forlornly into closed shops with your face pressed up against the glass' and 'it's night time, so certain services are located elsewhere and the general feel of the town is different'. I think the latter adds to immersion while avoiding certain pitfalls associated with hard 'IF YOU ARE NOT HERE AT THE RIGHT TIME THEN YOU ARE SOL' limits.

That's not to say there aren't games where the latter is appropriate (anything that mixes survival horror and open world seems like an ideal place to force you to spend the night outside, in a sleeping bag, holed up in a tree because oh my god the monsters might eat me), but the things you gain from this sort of thing have to be measured against the downsides of such an approach.

[John Epler]

Il Divo wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

A significant number of the design team have played, enjoyed and considered Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR and we've even been taking a look at some of the indie titles out there like Avadon (and even Aralon, on the iOs, which is pretty damn good, if you have the hardware).

Oh, and Dark Souls. Dear god, Dark Souls. I think timing the blades in Sen's Fortress may have broken a part of my soul, and I beat Demon's.

And then someone tells me Anor Londo is going to be worse. *sigh*

Still, Dark Souls is an exceptional example of atmosphere, mood and unquestionably clever level design.

Hearing a Bioware dev say this brings a tear to my eye. Dark Souls caught me completely off-guard with how well-designed the game is. If you guys are looking to steal gameplay/combat ideas from anywhere, I'm hoping it's this game. It's been a long time since I played a game where every small victory felt incredibly satisfying.

One of the neatest things that Dark Souls did was create a world that felt like it got bigger the further you progressed into it. All the shortcuts and various ways to get from point A to point D without having to go through points B and C were neat.

I've always liked open world games that don't feel entirely 'open world'. STALKER (yes, I'm talking about STALKER again, take a drink) was zone-based, but each zone was, itself, very 'open' and allowed for a lot of exploration. Call of Pripyat reduced the number of zones but made each zone a lot bigger, and that's probably my favourite 'exploration' mechanic I've seen thus far. While Dark Souls was one contiguous 'zone' (well, minus a few exceptions such as going from Sen's to Anor Londo, which required a cut scene), it felt less sprawling and more connected - something I thought was to its benefit.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Actually, while inventory is on my mind and realism getting in the way of fun is being discussed, what purpose does limiting inventory serve in Dragon Age? Having backpacks as expensive and/or rare luxury items makes as much sense as a diamond taking up as much room as broadsword. definitely not advocating slotted jigsaw inventories, but I'm curious if the limit is there for the sake of 'Look, see, you can't carry absolutely everything' token realism.

A limited inventory that can be expanded serves two purposes:

1) Backpacks provide an avenue of progression for the player that encourages exploration of the stores
Finding and purchasing the backpacks make your life easier, which allow for a sense of accomplishment when you find them and can afford them. In a very real way your "team" has just gotten better, in that they can carry more stuff from dungeons. Also, seeking that progression (after establishing backpacks as a desirable, and very affordable thing, in the first store in Ostagar, for instance) causes players to look in stores in new places they visit to see if there's another one. In doing so, they're exposed to some of the rare, powerful loot lurking in those stores, ideally sitting there as aspirational items to be acquired later.

2) A limited inventory provides an impetus to return to store locations and note potentially upgraded stock.
Some people noticed that new stuff appeared in the stores at certain points of DAO and DAII. If you never had to sell, you might get no exposure to the evoloving stock.

We went with the more abstract "space" concept for the inventory rather than weight so as not to penalize mage-heavy parties (who presumably would have lower collective strength than warriors, but don't deserve to have to leave a bunch of loot lying around, since multi-mages should be viable).

We went for non-inventory-tetris because in early prototypes that proved to be a LOT of shuffling if your bags were full and you needed to move things between party members. I tend to feel inventory tetris works far better with one "grid" than multiple grids.

That's the thinking behind it, anyway. YMMV, but we have put a fair amount of thought into it.

[John Epler]

Alright, this has drifted almost entirely off-topic. Let's pull it back to discussion more related to DA2, thank you.

[John Epler]

google_calasade wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Who said it was my kind of game? Criticizing Skyrim doesn't make me a huge fan of DA2, which commits substantially different errors.

I'm simply pointing out that role-playing, since it's dependent on something to interact with, is built around restrictions. If I control everything in the world, including the gameplay mechanics, the setting, and what npcs are thinking, I'm no longer role-playing, but writing. I become God, the author, the Dungeonmaster, the one who designs everything.

In simple terms: It's your character, it's the creator's world. By necessity, you can only control one half of the coin. It's a  pretty critical distinction from writing, where you command both halves.

Good point.

This is not a simple argument of who liked or did not like (me, for one) DA 2.  It goes beyond that.

It seems a lot of people (and some devs) want to control both halves of the coin when playing.  What they don't understand is that as soon as they are capable of that, a game will lose a lot of its RPG qualities.  Don't give me a world I can control.  Give me one where I have to learn the ins and outs of navigating, adapting to, and living within that world.

However, I think you need to avoid the urge to make things too sim'ish. Any feature that you include with the intent of increasing the sense of a world outside of the player's control has to be scrutinized. There's a notable difference between 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, the world is a much more terrifying place' and 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, you have to hit a button to pass the time until it's day again because the biggest difference is now you can't turn in quests or go to shops'.

For example, as a player I'd find it to be a positive if, when it's night time, I have to go and find a vendor in the less-than-savoury part of town because my usual blacksmith goes to bed at 6PM. Because I'm going to the 'slums', as it were, I end up getting mugged (for example) in a procedurally generated encounter and have to fight off my attackers. Or maybe nothing happens - but I know that the streets are a lot more dangerous down there because of a reduced guard presence.

To me, that helps with creating a living world while still avoiding the (to me) incredibly irritating feeling of 'oh, well, time to wait for 6 hours because I need to sell this breastplate'. Now, having said that, I think that the parts of the game that take place outside of town are an entirely other kettle of fish. That's where I want to see a marked difference between day and night - nocturnal creatures come out to hunt, and certain areas become more dangerous. In town, though, I really do feel that if you go too far in the 'well, it's night time, everything you wanted to do is locked until 5AM' direction, it's more irritating than anything. However, I think you can make concessions in that direction, so long as you aren't telling the player that night time is clearly the wrong time to be wandering around town.

[John Epler]

Pzykozis wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

However, I think you need to avoid the urge to make things too sim'ish. Any feature that you include with the intent of increasing the sense of a world outside of the player's control has to be scrutinized. There's a notable difference between 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, the world is a much more terrifying place' and 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, you have to hit a button to pass the time until it's day again because the biggest difference is now you can't turn in quests or go to shops'.

I'd say that either one is fairly "sim"-ish though, and being 'too "sim"-ish' is kinda a nebulous idea.. since its a shifting line on a scale but anyway, both having a less salubrious guy and a having to rest at night can both be "sim"-ish depending on the way it's implemented, this guy operating out of the slum can't exactly be the nicest and harm-free of fellows either being a fence or a smuggler or something, means that the player is actively supporting that "community" of folks, and if that comes up then the game is still "sim"ing to a certain extent. It's only less of a sim if the merchant is just arbitrarily (or feels like it) there.

Now if only there were guard patrols and dark alleys with procedural encounters and guards helping out.. and the possibility of joining either side and... /continues rambling.

What I mean is more along the lines of arbitrarily irritating the player because 'that's how it would be in the real world'. Sometimes, that can be fun - I think that a properly fleshed out (by which I mean that you are required to spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time on it) hunger and thirst mechanic would be neat in the right type of game. 

But with any feature like that, you have to look at whether you're adding complexity and depth, or just annoying the player. If it's something that can be easily overcome in a fashion that takes the player out of the world, the idea that it exists for no real reason is not an unfair judgment to make.

There's a balancing act between 'this world is immersive and feels 'real'' and 'this world is like the real world in even the most irritating ways'. The fact that vehicles in most open world games don't run out of gas is something I am highly appreciative of, even if it's not entirely realistic. If, halfway through a mission in GTAIV, I had to pull into a gas station and spend five minutes filling up, that would just be irritating. On the other hand, if I'm playing a game that emphasizes survival and a 'real world' feel, that would be kind of neat. Especially if I had to be on my guard against bandit attacks.

Ahem. I seem to have drifted off topic.

[John Epler]

Il Divo wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

What I mean is more along the lines of arbitrarily irritating the player because 'that's how it would be in the real world'. Sometimes, that can be fun - I think that a properly fleshed out (by which I mean that you are required to spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time on it) hunger and thirst mechanic would be neat in the right type of game. 

But with any feature like that, you have to look at whether you're adding complexity and depth, or just annoying the player. If it's something that can be easily overcome in a fashion that takes the player out of the world, the idea that it exists for no real reason is not an unfair judgment to make.

There's a balancing act between 'this world is immersive and feels 'real'' and 'this world is like the real world in even the most irritating ways'. The fact that vehicles in most open world games don't run out of gas is something I am highly appreciative of, even if it's not entirely realistic. If, halfway through a mission in GTAIV, I had to pull into a gas station and spend five minutes filling up, that would just be irritating. On the other hand, if I'm playing a game that emphasizes survival and a 'real world' feel, that would be kind of neat. Especially if I had to be on my guard against bandit attacks.

Ahem. I seem to have drifted off topic.

I fail to see where you drifted off topic with your example.  I like it.

I've long wanted an RPG where the PC has a hunger and thirst mechanic, where the world is immersive because it feels more real without being overly annoying and repetitive.  It's a hard act to balance, but I think attempts need to be made at just such a thing.  Otherwise, what you end up with is a fairly bland, way too easy game that has the depth of a mud puddle.

One of the things I actually enjoyed alot with Fallout: New Vegas. Hardcore mode added an interesting spin to things.

My concern with that particular version of it was that, after a certain point, water and food became so easy to find that it just became an annoyance. But yes, it was one of the few places it's been used and I thought it added a lot to the game early on.

[John Epler]

google_calasade wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

My concern with that particular version of it was that, after a certain point, water and food became so easy to find that it just became an annoyance. But yes, it was one of the few places it's been used and I thought it added a lot to the game early on.

I think is actually a good, general example regarding some of what we're talking about.  If something becomes too easy, it's an annoyance.  If there's a challenge in it, however, the annoyance ceases and becomes an obstacle to overcome.  That won't work for all things, of course, but I think it's a valid point developers need to keep in mind.

Yes, exactly. If something is an interesting and it's, as you say, an obstacle to overcome - that's something worthwhile. You still have to consider how it fits into your overall design philosophy, of course, but the sense of defeating a challenge is part of what makes games interesting and worthwhile as a leisure activity.

If you're not planning on making something difficult, but instead leaving it at the level of an irritant - it's probably best to avoid it altogether. It might just be a minor annoyance, but enough minor annoyances can severely impact one's gaming experience. Weight systems offer a perfect example of this. In STALKER (take a drink), they put enough work into the weight system (giving bullets, food, bandages and medkits weight) that it became a part of the game. Your carrying capacity was low enough that you had to put thought into what you took on each of your excursions, and the idea of a 'home base' where you kept your extra equipment added something tangible to the experience.

Other games with weight limits, however, where you don't really need to focus all that much on what you're carrying except when you're leaving an area to sell all the neat stuff you acquired feel like the weight limit is more of an annoyance than anything. Which is, I think, a good example of the difference between taking a feature and weaving it into the experience, as opposed to adding a feature that doesn't really mesh all that well with the rest of the game.

[John Epler]

Filament wrote...

I will say that if the spirit meter got promoted from minor annoyance to a genuine obstacle in Mask of the Betrayer, I would not see that as an improvement. Being able to minimize it is the only thing that made it tolerable.

Well, it's not a perfect formula. I think the how of getting around the obstacle is extremely important as well. If all you're doing is magnifying the irritation of an obstacle, then I don't think that's a good end goal.

[John Epler]

We are massively off-topic at this point. I'm going to give it a little time to see if we can pull things back on-topic, but otherwise I'll lock it as we may have reached the end of this thread's useful life.

[John Epler]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

John Epler wrote...

We are massively off-topic at this point. I'm going to give it a little time to see if we can pull things back on-topic, but otherwise I'll lock it as we may have reached the end of this thread's useful life

That would probably be my fault. So I'll stop as I don't want to be the reason why this thread gets locked.

Can I ask a question? What are your -- as in the team as a whole -- opinions on how to make combat better in the future?

Well, you can certainly ask - though I'm afraid I'm not able to tell you a whole lot on that front. My focus is more on the narrative side of things than combat. And really, I live in fear of saying the wrong thing and revealing something that shouldn't be revealed yet.

What I -can- say is that I would expect a renewed focus on things such as positioning and tactics where combat's concerned. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin would likely provide better indications of where we want to go in this regard than the DA2 base game, but a little further down that path, if that makes sense.

It's very difficult for me to comment on this with any kind of authority, really. I suppose my generic answer would be 'we've seen the concerns some of our fans had with DA2 (and to a lesser extent Legacy and MotA) and are working to address them'. It's not very satisfying, I know, but it's really all I can say. I work with my back to the door now, after all. I need to be cautious. Too much possibility of punching.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 16 janvier 2012 - 10:00 .