5 réponses à ce sujet

[John Epler]

The problem with blood magic is, unfortunately, that it's a fairly limited thing - you only get that content if you're both A) a mage and willing to be a blood mage. That being said, minority content isn't something we're against as a rule - it just has to be handled appropriately and with the relevant expectations - one of which being that there has to be equivalent content for other 'paths'.

But, I do think the writers want to touch on blood magic a little more in future projects than they were able to in DA2. So themes of corruption and power could certainly be explored through blood magic.

[John Epler]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

John Epler wrote...

The problem with blood magic is, unfortunately, that it's a fairly limited thing - you only get that content if you're both A) a mage and willing to be a blood mage. That being said, minority content isn't something we're against as a rule - it just has to be handled appropriately and with the relevant expectations - one of which being that there has to be equivalent content for other 'paths'.

But, I do think the writers want to touch on blood magic a little more in future projects than they were able to in DA2. So themes of corruption and power could certainly be explored through blood magic.

That sounds a bit too simple, John. If, in a game, blood magic is the main theme, then you cannot expect players to overlook its use, just because the developer has chosen that this major theme is in fact just a minor one. To me that feels like it deserves a bit more than exploring the theme. It requires having appropriate game world responses, like class recognition. Consequences to which side you have chosen. You don't need to explain to an NPC that you are a mage when you just threw a fireball while wearing a staff and a pointy hat. Players should know where they learned blood magic from. Players should be hunted down for using (blood) magic when it is not accepted. Merchants should not specialize in gear for (blood) mages in the open. Etc.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing against class recognition - far from it. What I'm addressing is the idea that blood magic, specifically the power of blood magic to corrupt the player, can be a major theme. Because it's by no means trivial to add, particularly as, like I said, you would only ever encounter that storyline if you happen to be both A) a mage and a blood mage. That's not saying that we shouldn't acknowledge if you make that choice - it's not an insignificant choice, and we've said before that we plan on having recognition of your specialization within the world, and the appropriate consequences associated with that choice.

If what you're looking for is a game that changes completely if you happen to choose the blood magic specialization, then that isn't going to happen. The only way that we would be willing to build an entire different game for people who choose a particular specialization is if we limited you to that choice and only that choice, stripping away other mage specializations and warrior/rogue as well. That's not to say we can't do more than we've previously done, of course, and we'll readily acknowledge that we should've done more with apostate mages and blood mages in DA2. But there is a point where we have to keep resource limitations in mind, and entirely different experiences for a player based on a sub choice of a class choice is probably that line.

[John Epler]

CrustyBot wrote...

While I think changing the story based on class specialization is an unreasonable proposition, I don't see what AFW is suggesting as the same thing. There are ways to develop consequences for such a specialization without altering the premise or progression of narrative - mainly through mechanics that alter interactions between player and game. Side Quests that acknowledge such choices would also be nice.

But I think that the Dragon Age franchise is sorely missing in the variety of interaction and overarching mechanics driving reactivity.

Whenever someone brings up the issue of resources and how it's "impossible" to implement that kind of reactivity, I can't help but think of Nosferatu or Malkavian playthroughs in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines; or Werewolves and Vampires in the Elder Scrolls games.

You don't need to rely on discrete story branching for everything - I'd argue that you shouldn't.

Well, I'm mostly referring to the comment that Blood Mages should be constantly hunted down.

As to other types of reactivity? I can get behind that. There's a lot that can be done simply through various little in-world events that can give the feeling that, by choosing to be a blood mage, you've drawn a line in the sand. Which comes down to the idea of storytelling through gameplay, rather than just dialogue, which is something I'm entirely in favour of. And given the world state at the end of DA2 - the fact that everything has, more or less, gone to hell seems to support a world where you can react to these choices without being inconsistent. Back in DA:O, being an apostate/blood mage was a Really Big Deal, because of the control the chantry and templars had over the world.

Now that the mages have rebelled against the chantry, it seems more feasible that the templars simply don't have the time or resources to go after you in quite as concerted a fashion as they did before. Some people would still react poorly to your use of blood magic, and there would, undoubtedly, be those who would seek your demise - but a blood mage protagonist feels a bit more feasible than it may have previously. 

I'm just spitballing. Though I'll say that, of your examples, I can agree with the Malkavian/Nosferatu/Everyone Else distinction. Less so for the Elder Scrolls games, at least the more recent ones. There were some comments, certainly, but by and large the consequences were not all that large.

Modifié par John Epler, 30 avril 2012 - 11:44 .

[John Epler]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

That sounds much better. But I feel blood magic is a special case in the storyline so far. The apostate/templar conflict is what DA2 is supposed to represent. And to be honest, storywise there was not much difference in playing a rogue or a mage or a warrior, besides the gameplay of the class itself.

I doubt you'll get much disagreement. This is something we've discussed, and, while it may not be to the degree some people are hoping for, we hope to make it feel at least somewhat different in the future. DAO, to me, felt like it handled it rather well by emphasizing that, as a Warden, you're not really subject to the same restrictions as the 'common folk', but it still reacted to your class choice in some situations. I think that's a good goal for us to aim for in future projects.

I understand that resources are a problem, but as a player I respond to what I have been offered in the past. To me resources are not my concern. The story and gameplay are my concern. I know that you guys can be great in those. I have seen it before. But that same resource problem made DA2 to what it was. I won't bother you with waves of foes and the like. Still, I like to mention the rationalizations to keep the story railroaded because these hurt the story telling. That too felt like it was done for economic reasons.

And again, that does not mean I don't respect you guys for the work you are doing. I just respond to what I experience in DA2 and look at what you promise through those eyes.

Nothing wrong with this at all. Resources -aren't- your concern as a consumer of an entertainment product. You care about how the game plays and feels, and that's it. However, I would suggest that, when you're in discussion with developers before a game has been released, you're in a slightly different position. You can (and should!) make suggestions and proposals based on what you want in a game - but if you want to engage in discussion, the reality of limited resources has to be taken into consideration. Again, that's not to say that you should refrain from making requests because 'oh, they may not have the resources', but it does help make the conversation rather more productive all around when it's kept in mind.

[John Epler]

CrustyBot wrote...

RE: Blood Mages being hunted, Fallout: New Vegas employs something similar, where falling out of favour with the major factions forces them to send hit squads after you as random encounters. Chris Avellone noted this mechanic in the recent Plot vs Play panel at Pax (plenty of p's in that particular piece).

"Josh Sawyer, who was playing through Fallout New Vegas for the second time. And he decided to ****** off both factions in the game, who hate each other. And when you ****** off either faction in the game, assassins will attack you, which is pretty typical for showing reputation mechanics in games.

But because he had chosen to ****** off both factions, which is something we hadn't accounted for, he woke up in the Mojave Wasteland one morning to find that both assassin squads had spawned in but rather than attack him, they launched at each other, murdered each other, and Josh just went by, whistled, looted all their corpses... And I could have spent like a month and a half trying to do a narrative design solution that would set up that situation, but because of the mechanics Josh was able to have a story all his own because of his actions in the environment."

Wouldn't something like that work well for the Templar/Mage focus of Dragon Age? Judging by Chris Avellone's comment, it'd also use less resources/take less time, assuming that the base for such interactions are there.

Yeah, that's the kind of narrative through gameplay I mentioned earlier (maybe in this thread, I've lost track). The only concern I'd have (and it's possible that I'm just paranoid) is that part of the reason it worked in FO:NV is that they've conditioned players to expect a significant portion of that game's storytelling to take place through the environment and gameplay, whereas we tend to lean heavily on dialogue and cinematics. Which isn't an excuse, really - finding a better place on that line in which to live is certainly something we're aware of moving forward - but it does raise a few warning bells.

Generally speaking, though, the less we have to pull the player into a conversation or cutscene, the happier I am. A cinematics guy who believes that fewer cinematics are a good thing? Shock and horror.

STALKER remains my go-to example for this kind of thing. Most of the biggest 'narrative' moments in that game are entirely unscripted. I doubt we'll go quite that far into the 'ambient narrative' direction, but those types of games certainly have some things that we could draw from.