26 réponses à ce sujet

[Burnouts3s3]

 Because it's a long wait. Personally, I'm doing dailies on TOR and rerolling Wardens and Hawkes.

Yourself? 

Modifié par Burnouts3s3, 14 juin 2012 - 11:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

No college education = no shot in hell that I'll become a writer.

Are you looking at becoming a game writer?

[Allan Schumacher]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Are you looking at becoming a game writer?

Very much so. Writing and video games are pretty much two of my favorite things in the world, the former being a talent I discovered in my senior year of high school. Being able to write for video games -- preferably RPGs -- would be nothing short of amazing.

Most of the writing I have done has generally been on my own. Non-published material or the like. Poetry, songs, fanfic, original stories, general plot ideas, etc.. I try my best to make what I write seem at the very least decent.

College writing is probably not as necessary as you may think.  For almost all things in gaming, I find showing that you were able to start on something and finish it is a fantastic thing to have on a portfoilio.  I actually had brief discussions regarding a writing position back when I was still a contract worker and was told that writing for a video game can be very different than writing a novel or even for film.

It's not as relevant now which is unfortunate, but taking something like NWN and writing a short module can still work wonders.  Show that you're able to take a story and provide some branches while not letting it get carried away so that you can focus and wrap up the story.

I wouldn't even consider it necessary to properly script it, though if you do that too it'll help develop some skills for other aspects than just writing.  You could probably still make it work with DAO's toolsets (I'm not sure what the capabilities are of the end user toolset), or maybe something like Gamebryo's (I have zero experience with that one unfortunately).

I'd probably recommend writing from an established setting though, because it'll help you skip over a lot of the introductory exposition of the setting.  Jump in and hook your audience.  Heck, try writing a side quest in the DA universe (or another RPG of your choosing).  From there, and I think this is most important, look forward to the feedback and go into it with an open mind.


IMO showing that you can create a fun adventure within the context of a setting is probably more likely to get you consideration for an entry level writing position than going to college (unless maybe that college specializes in writing for video games).

[Allan Schumacher]

Allan - how sought after, in the gaming industry, are testers? No one ever seems to want to pay to have it done. No one wants to do it. Done well, it is incredibly tedious. But it seems like a foot in the door. (Diablo III - two words - LOAD TESTING. geez)

I can only speak from experience at BioWare, but we typically have hiring fairs every few months for contract positions. I do believe BioWare is a bit unusual with more "in house" QA than some other studios.

Most of the entry stuff will probably be contract, but if QA is fairly well integrated with the rest of the team (it is at BioWare) opportunities to network in other disciplines present themselves, as well as more permanent stuff in QA.

[Allan Schumacher]

Skelter192 wrote...

Drooling over the Wasteland 2 vision document <--- Bioware should take some ideas. Especially how they plan to make the party work.

Which parts do you like the most? (I'm reading it right now myself).

[Allan Schumacher]

wsandista wrote...

The entire thing.

Shadowrun looks amazing as well.

That's nice, although it is a bit general haha.  Many of us have read the document though, but if there's aspects that you like more than others this is a good time to mention it.  Presenting them in a way for how you'd tie them into Dragon Age will probably score bonus points


Just as an example, BIoWare has never done a "full open party" game (there's always been a defined protagonist), so consider it a challenge to figure out how something like that can work while factoring in that it's a "radical" perspective for BioWare and hence, also BioWare fans.  Your answer could be as simple as "Do it.  They'll love it" but that's just not as much fun now is it!?

[Allan Schumacher]

Technically, in Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2, you could start a multiplayer game with just you and create the whole party. You'd miss the NPC plots (unless you left space in the party for them) but you could play it that way. Heck, most fanmade walkthroughs and guides recommend this approach. So it's not exactly a "radical departure" for Bioware fans

As you say, it's "technically." I'd actually bet money that this was not typical of how most people played through the game. I'd bet even more that the amount of people that played it this way on their first playthrough of BG2 is such a tiny fraction of the people playing the game for the first time. Even then, the plot still revolves around one character, the Bhaalspawn.

I don't know what fan made guides today discuss, but when I bought BG2 at release the party makeup discussions always involved actual NPC discussions. So yeah, I still feel it'd be a radical departure for both BioWare and its fans.

[Allan Schumacher]

Xewaka wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
As you say, it's "technically." I'd actually bet money that this was not typical of how most people played through the game. I'd bet even more that the amount of people that played it this way on their first playthrough of BG2 is such a tiny fraction of the people playing the game for the first time. Even then, the plot still revolves around one character, the Bhaalspawn.

Actually, the plot in BG2 revolves around Imoen and Irenicus. The Bhaalspawn is sort of there.

You feel that making the story about the party rather than one protagonist makes the game a radical departure. However, is it really so? In Bioware games, the main character lives the plot, but he's not the driver of it. What's the difference between "Shepard saves the Galaxy" and "A squad of Spectres saves the Galaxy"? How does it affect the gameplay and the overarching plot? You're not missing the personal factor and interaction at a character level just because you control more than one character. If anything, you can explore different approaches within the same game, with the different characters you crafted.
But then again, I've played tabletop RPGs in which each player controlled an ensemble (Ars Magica, to be specific), so I'm used to the mindset.

I think it's a huge difference.  Shepard drives everything in Mass Effect.

In BG2, regardless of whether or not the plot revolves around Imoen or Irenicus, there's one character that if that character dies, it's game over.  There's one character in the party that gets special abilities for being Bhaalspawn (and has those special abilities ripped away).  There's one person that drives all the dialogue.

If one main protagonist wasn't all that different from a party of generated characters, it wouldn't be a key component of what people that contributed to Wasteland 2 are hoping for.  They're specifically wanting a party focused game rather than a main protagonist plus a squad.  Go onto the Wasteland forums and suggest a primary protagonist with a party, commenting that it's not that different, and I don't think you'll find much support.  Extra ammo will be fired at you if you were to draw the comparison to it not being much different than Mass Effect

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 juin 2012 - 08:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I am writing overly long forum posts when I probably should be doing something more constructive.

I'm not sure what could have been more constructive!

Who you choose for your team will add dimension to your party interactions, opening new possibilities for you to explore. <snip>

I am really looking forward to this in Wasteland. I think it might work better in Wasteland because you still have the ranger team that you have full control over. I think more people on these forums want increased control over their party members (from outfitting them with different armors to different skill specs). I'm totally open for the idea and expect to find it awesome (often in a frustrating way lol) in WL2. It does seem a bit more "hardcore" which may result in some of the people considering any negative consequences as "gotchas" if they just happen to occur at the worst time.

Will the wastes remember you and your team as diplomatic defenders of justice? As a group of intimidating, brutish thugs? Or somewhere in between? The choice is yours. <snip>

I think BioWare games (and many Western RPGs) already do stuff like this. It's more reflected probably at the conclusion of the game (especially if there are epilogue slides). I do think improved reactions by the game world is soemthing that can always be done. There is an opportunity cost (you're writing those responses instead of something else) but there's probably a happy medium which maximizes the benefit without too much cost.

True RPGs allow options……we don’t mean token one-node lip service, we mean reactions, even a chain of reactions that builds over the course of the game. <snip>

I would definitely like to do more mutually exclusive choices, and find stuff like this interesting. I think Alpha Protocol did a very good job with it (not even necessarily mutually exclusive choice, but I mean you could skip out on entire NPCs which is something you don't see in many games).

I do agree that BioWare games have always had a strong focus on the narrative (especially since BG2. BG1 is a bit more open). This does make being a "true RPG" a bit more challenging. Though I suspect even Wasteland 2 will still have some sort of primary narrative (though you may be able to just outright ignore it). Improving the player agency in achieving the main plot objectives is still something we can do though. I think DAO did a bit better of a job of this than DA2 did, so hoepfully we can get back to that (or even better). Things like dealing with Connor, where if you didn't go to the Circle of Magi have alternatives that the player may not even be aware of, are the types of things that I think make the game more interesting. One thing I enjoyed about Alpha Protocol was playing it the same time as my friend, and it was fun to talk about all the things we did that the other didn't do, while still ultimately achieving the same final objective.

Less reliance of just combat as a resolution to obstacles is a good thing.

A Beckoning World, Not a Forced March

Depending on how we do a plot, I don't think there's anything preventing a "forced march" from being achieved in a way that the player feels it's a beckoning world. A great linear story is the one that successfully leads the player into choosing the path that is provided, rather than feeling forced to do so. Deus Ex was fantastic for this (the illusion of narrative choice at certain points was so "evident" that I figured for sure there were large branches within the game. Turns out I just happened to choose the way that they wanted the story to go).

[Allan Schumacher]

BG didn't do that. BG explicitly allowed you to have Imoen (or Coran, or Dynaheir, or whomever) do all the talking on the party's behalf.

I don't recall that, but I haven't played BG in a dozen years now. I do recall that the Bhaalspawn dying was game over, whereas Imoen dying was not.

[Allan Schumacher]

Shazzie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Less reliance of just combat as a resolution to obstacles is a good thing.

My heart overfloweth. I lack the words to express the sheer joy I felt at seeing this statement.

Don't get me wrong- I enjoy combat in my RPGs, but I hate it when the game is practically reduced to combat as the ends to all means.

I was just overwhelmed by happy thoughts when I read that, and had to say something.    Carry on!

My level of direct influence is limited, especially since my area of QA doesn't actually cover stuff like this (i.e. I have to go out of my way), so I can't guarantee anything.

I did resolve to try to find more time to provide feedback to the devs about game mechanics that I approve of though, and to make sure I keep "the big picture" in focus.  Ultimately I want games to include the game mechanics that I find enjoyable 

(It's part of why I have decided to post on the BSN too).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 juin 2012 - 12:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Mostly I'd agree.

I think sometimes you want to reward the player for having made the appropriate decisions in the past, and occasionally offer a "more ideal" solution. Other times (I'd agree MOST times), it's more interesting having to reconcile different choices and their potential outcomes.

Perhaps the Circle's involvement could have been done better, but I used the example more because I did Redcliffe first and had no idea it was even an option. Maybe an appropriate difference would have been "Had the player done the circle first, an ideal solution could be made. If the player has to leave Connor and do the entire Circle quest, then have additional consequences due to time investment required."

[Allan Schumacher]

In general I agree.

Though it's based on a lot of discussion I had with fans in the ME3 forum that actually has made me more open to allowing for (hopefully not very easy to obtain) a more ideal outcome to be had. Keeping ME3 spoiler free, but Rannoch's resolution I think worked out very well and was mostly quite well received.

Bhelen vs Harrowmont is my favourite from the whole DA series though. I was floored when I saw the epilogues for them and was like "YES YES YES." Hahaha.

if you never have an ideal solution, people will never look for them. If you do occasionally have them, people may look for them. Though I suppose they may get annoyed when they can't find one... Hahaha.

[Allan Schumacher]

How many of them supported Harrowmont and then switched over to supporting Bhelen immediately upon hearing that he gives the happy ending? I don't mean to be offensive but most of them are not thinking of their decisions. Which is why things like Rannoch, Connor, Werewolves and such never really have much discussion--it ultimately leads to "why not do the happy ending?".

I don't think you'll ever be able to fully get rid of this. What I liked about the Bhelen/Harrowmont issue is that you don't see the results of it until the end game (presumably long after doing Orzammar). If someone wishes to reroll their story to make sure it's rainbows and lollipops, is that necessarily a bad thing?

I picked Harrowmont and stuck with my guns afterward, and it was somewhat refreshing to know that it was the suboptimal choice. Unless you're saying that learning about an ideal choice makes you feel cheated (and I don't think you are), at this point is it necessarily bad? I used Jowan and sacrificed Isolde, and finding out that it was possible to have a better outcome made me go "Hey that's neat!" but I still stuck with my playthrough. It didn't take anything away from my playthrough.


If you've seen my posts about the ME3 endings, you'll know that in many ways I actually agree with your position. But by the same token I think that people did a decent enough job of indicating that part of why they play video games is for some escapist fun, and providing the occasional way of finding a way to resolve things in a happy outcome is enjoyable. If we can do it in a way that isn't overly contrived or ham fisted, I think it's a decent way to allow for some player agency.


I'm actually more open to these ideal solutions if it still requires compromise elsewhere (imagine only being able to do the ideal for one of the Brecillian Forest or Connor), but even then I don't think purely eliminating ideal outcomes is necessarily a good thing either. But I do agree with the notion that achieving the ideal should be fragile and relatively easy to no longer be possible.

If people want to reroll to achieve these, I think that's up to them. It's their game experience and I don't think we should make too many decisions that try to prevent metagaming. Save it for the really big moments where we really want to make you think.

[David Gaider]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
If people want to reroll to achieve these, I think that's up to them. It's their game experience and I don't think we should make too many decisions that try to prevent metagaming. Save it for the really big moments where we really want to make you think.

The only part where I would disagree with you, Allan, is when the "optimal ending" comes without cost... at least in those situations where a cost is appropriate. Sometimes happy endings should just be happy endings. They're grand. But when you have a dramatic situation, offering an easy out cheapens it no matter how much a player might want it.

Of course they want it. If we've done our job right, they care about having that happy ending enough to want it because they want everything to work out for everyone involved. Giving it to them is not always a good idea.

I hold Redcliffe up as my own personal failure on this front. I wimped out and gave the "third option" of a consequence-free solution just by doing something the player was going to do anyhow... when that really should have come with its own cost. Yes, you should have been able to save both Isolde and Connor... at the price of returning and seeing the village of Redcliffe desolated just the same as if you'd abandoned it to the zombie horde.

Which is not to say that all plots should exist to batter the player over the head with their grimdark realness (in my opinon). But neither would I ever agree that just because a player wants their escapist everything-works-out ending that it's my job to give it to them.

Just my two cents.

[Allan Schumacher]

The only part where I would disagree with you, Allan, is when the "optimal ending" comes without cost... at least in those situations where a cost is appropriate. Sometimes happy endings should just be happy endings. They're grand. But when you have a dramatic situation, offering an easy out cheapens it no matter how much a player might want it.

I guess I just never saw it as an easy out because it would require the player to either have outside knowledge or prior experience in order to make the choice, or just some luck in doing the Circle first.

Having said that, if you think that Redcliffe is a personal failure, you aren't going to find me telling you to reconsider your perspective (and those words probably made some of these boards quite happy to boot). In general I do prefer choices to be challenging ones that make me think about the real costs associated with them. I'm probably quite pragmatic (some might figure hypocritical would be a better word haha) because I loved that there was no ideal choice at the end of ME3, but at the same time it felt suitable and appropriate that there was a way to resolve the conflict on Rannoch.

Which is not to say that all plots should exist to batter the player over the head with their grimdark realness (in my opinon). But neither would I ever agree that just because a player wants their escapist everything-works-out ending that it's my job to give it to them.

I suspect I'm probably MUCH more tolerant of having "ideal" solutions for quest lines in the middle of the game. I do agree that having an "escapist everything-works-out ending" is often not a preferred ending for myself, and it's actually one thing that I dislike about the ending for ME2.


I'm curious what your thoughts are on how Bhelen/Harrowmont choice ends up playing out. I was floored (in a good way) to learn that supporting Bhelen leads to a better resolution for Orzammar, and the fact that the player only learns this after completing the game I thought was magnificently played. This was the type of situation that I don't know if we can avoid players metagaming to get a "happier" ending, and I don't know if there is a resolution for how this played out that I would have enjoyed more.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 juin 2012 - 05:58 .

[David Gaider]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I loved that there was no ideal choice at the end of ME3, but at the same time it felt suitable and appropriate that there was a way to resolve the conflict on Rannoch.

Whereas I felt the opposite about Rannoch. I didn't like the idea that "Saint Shephard" could roam the galaxy, solving all these races' long-standing issues which they have been unable to resolve on their own for generations. It trivialized those issues in a way I didn't like. Again, not to say that he shouldn't be able to solve anything but considering some of the stuff I had already done in the game it stretched my incredulity a bit.

And with Rannoch specifically, it seemed to me like one of the fundamental themes of the game was that organics and synthetics could not get along. And here I got them to get along by saying "hey guys, get along!". And then I was later told that synthetics and organics would inevitably destroy each other? I suppose one could suggest that the peaceful Rannoch solution would inevitably fail, but there was nothing by that point to indicate it would be so.

When I posted my thoughts on Twitter about this, I got a lot of "but I just wanted a feel good moment!" responses. And, again, I get that some people really wanted this to work out and wanted to have a happy moment. By design that should be the case. I don't begrudge them that. I just don't think that was the place to do it,

I'm curious what your thoughts are on how Bhelen/Harrowmont choice ends up playing out. I was floored (in a good way) to learn that supporting Bhelen leads to a better resolution for Orzammar, and the fact that the player only learns this after completing the game I thought was magnificently played. This was the type of situation that I don't know if we can avoid players metagaming to get a "happier" ending, and I don't know if there is a resolution for how this played out that I would have enjoyed more.

I don't know that "benevolent tyranny" is what I would personally consider optimal or happy. Maybe some people do. Either way, I wouldn't consider the epilogues to be parts of the plots themselves... they're outside the story, an addendum if you will. If some people wish to metagame their story so they get a preferred addendum, that's okay by me.

Modifié par David Gaider, 14 juin 2012 - 03:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

And with Rannoch specifically, it seemed to me like one of the fundamental themes of the game was that organics and synthetics could not get along. And here I got them to get along by saying "hey guys, get along!". And then I was later told that synthetics and organics would inevitably destroy each other? I suppose one could suggest that the peaceful Rannoch solution would inevitably fail, but there was nothing by that point to indicate it would be so.

Haha, for me it worked more because it planted seeds of doubt in the ending and made the Catalyst unreliable.  What I found interesting is that the Catalyst's assertion may be wrong, and actually made the choice at the end more difficult for me as what would have been the obvious choice for me now wasn't so easy.  JMO.

Though this isn't the ME3 forum and I do want to limit spoilers, so I'll cut myself short here.  I think your perspective on the situation is also valid.


Though I do realize I am misremembering some stuff about the Connor situation.  Based on reading posts in this thread it does seem like, even if you don't go to the circle first, Jowan does still mention the possibility of using the circle.  In this sense, it's much more transparent and having that be consequence free (especially when Jowan hints that there isn't time) I'm willing to concede my point on this regard.  Was just misremembering the details.  I agree that saving Connor and Isolde should have been possible, but the time spent at the Circle should have resulted in some sort of consequence.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 juin 2012 - 04:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Yes, voicing the PC effectively eliminates the possibility of using companions as party spokesperson. That's one of the big reasons I don't like voicing the PC.

Do you pick the dialogue options for Imoen? Are they the same dialogue options that you'd have as the PC?

[Allan Schumacher]

In the spirit of the thread, I do think it'd be prudent to mention that all the Fallout talk had me install the game again.... lol.

Made it to Junktown last night. Find it hard to not be the good guy in that game, so I am again

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

A similar experience made me pick up Fallout 2 a few weeks ago. Now THAT was a game that can stand the test of time.

I would HIGHLY recommend checking out the Fallout 2 Restoration Project: http://www.nma-fallo...pic.php?t=40443">[url=http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40443]http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40443 . It really took a lot of elements that were in the original plan for Fallout 2 and gives them great life. A little buggy (I'd read the posts and make sure you do everything they tell you for the smoothest ride) but DEFINITELY worth a check out.

Thanks.  I just recently learned about Sawyer's FONV mod and am considering picking up the DLCs for it and playing the uber hardcore mode that it provides!

[Allan Schumacher]

Sawyer (Obsidian employee that worked on FONV) made this mod: (It requires all the DLC though)

http://www.nma-fallo...le.php?id=60505

Since it's a "what are you doing while waiting" thread I have no problems suggesting that people that like a hardcore experience give this a try

To continue this tangent it's great fun but I do find the fact that they've lived so long and yet food is sometimes reeeeaallly hard to come by makes me wonder how people are still alive. Need more survival elements in games I do enjoy a good survival mechanic.

It makes the Survivalist skill a lot more valuable. I remember distilling 20 radiated waters into pure waters. But it wasn't really necessary in FONV as the Hardcore requirements weren't quite as unforgiving as I would have liked.

[Allan Schumacher]

The issue becomes "does it make SENSE for there to have been no additional consequences."

[Allan Schumacher]

Since it's relevant to the discussion I don't want to axe out everything, but I did change the title of this thread to point out that there are ME3 spoilers in this thread.

[David Gaider]

berelinde wrote...
With all due respect... Why?

If the protagonist has already battled zombies and whatever else to save Redcliffe before even confronting Connor, what role-playing reason is there to back everything up to a timepoint before that happened? Granted, if the player is getting there after abandoning Redcliffe, sure, the town is toast, but the player worked very hard to save Redcliffe and a brief journey into the fade doesn't exactly negate history.

I totally get the concept that there should be actions and reprecussions, but that one seems particularly incongruous. Does the protagonist awaken new spirits in Redcliffe because s/he goes into the Fade? Are these spirits bent on Redcliffe Village's destruction? Casting the "abandoned Redcliffe" outcome on players who opt for a cerebral resolution to the Connor question smacks of retaliation without cause, and that makes no role-playing sense whatever your genre. The battle is won. Moving on... the battle is lost? What's up with that?

I'm not finding fault. I'm just trying to understatnd. Penalty, surely, but maybe some other one may have been better. Maybe some handicap at Landsmeet.

Two reasons:

1) Because Teagan warned that he had no idea how long they would keep Connor contained. He wasn't imprisoned, after all, just sitting up in his father's room and... well, sulking. In the game, it turned out to be an empty warning. Connor remains up there as long as you're gone. But what if, given time, he'd recovered?

2) Because the "Redcliffe is destroyed" state already existed. It was a switch that could be thrown and thus would cost no extra resources to implement, beyond the explanation Teagan (or whoever) would have needed to offer regarding how they defeated Connor again.... or whatever it was.

Not saying this is what would have happened. Just saying this would have been the most likely result, had we gone in that direction. Considering the warning, I don't think it would have been all that incongruous at all.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 juin 2012 - 04:05 .