201 réponses à ce sujet

[ev76]

Well I have been trying to find any news on da3 here in these forums. Aside from that when I do play games have been playing me3 mp while I wait for EC, now I'm also waiting for castlevania lords of shadow 2 and medal of honor. Oh and picked up dawn of the seeker which helped with my dragon age fix. so bioware send some news our way pronto! Gracias!

[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).

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

The entire thing.

Shadowrun looks amazing as well.

[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!?

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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!?

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.

Modifié par Xewaka, 12 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[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.

[Cyberarmy]

Xewaka wrote...


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.

Just came to say that
I created 5 character at BG1, wrote their bio, used my friends hand drawn portraits and recoreded some funny comments form my family/friends . And played the whole BG saga with that party (still cant believe called one of them Artemis Entreri:pinched:)
That was quite an experience, role played every one of them. Hassled ladies with my bard, purged (at least tried) every evil with my paladin and stolen anything i can with Entreri. And also i found a mod that add some party banter which leveled up my entertaintment.


So yeah i want something like this from next DA game. And add that RPG elements from that WL2 vision we have an excellent game here!
But that last 2 sentences are  "A fool's hope"

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 12 juin 2012 - 08:05 .

[Xewaka]

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.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

If TEWR was into Wasteland, he'd make you eat those words.

[Cyberarmy]

CrustyBot wrote...



If TEWR was into Wasteland, he'd make you eat those words.

I think we can lure TEWR to Wasteland by adding some Gorilla pets with mounted guns, tamed by  rangers.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 12 juin 2012 - 08:26 .

[Chromie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wsandista wrote...

The entire thing.

Shadowrun looks amazing as well.

That's nice, although it is a bit general haha. 

But it all sounds so good!

Well what stood out to me the was...

How a NPC's personality can affect how they fight ie: phobia of rats causes a party member to waste a little too much ammo

Imagine having a Templar in your group who never fought demons (like Cullen) or is scared of them maybe they could get like a +5 attack or +3 damage boost. A mage like Anders who hates Templars gets like a frenzied buff increasing his damage output by 20% for 10 seconds or so. I don't mind if it's a simple buff or something visual like a mage glowing (ie: Wynne's secret ability)

Your party or temporary NPC's will take items from you when needed.

Having party members take health/mana pots or poisons from my inventory when they need it and if we have someone like Varric could take arrows/bolts for their weapon which can help with a cluttered inventory. Obviously we could set a limit to how much they could like no more than 5 potions or one stack of bolts.

And most of all "If they don't like someone in they won't be shy about it" the whole bit there sounds great

Now I don't expect Bioware to let us send party members out to do a mission but it would be a good way for the party to alert the player to the dangers we can expect in a dungeon. Party members could also say things like "take me to the dungeon because I can disarm traps"  or companions that get a long together could recieve a bonus to their approval rating.


Some other important points that the visiondoc has that is sadly ignored by Bioware is "Game Mechanics that tell the Story" like diagloue and even appearance affecting the way others percieve you and your party.

How many of us hated that mage Hawke walking around with a staff and casting magic in Act 1 (before entering Kirkwall) infront of the Templars and yet didn't even recieve a reprimand? It would add to immersion and could be a way to trick enemies such as a smaller group of bandits attacking me.
 

Words as Weapons really sounds like another great mechanic that could really improve on what Eidos did with Deus Ex and add a different approach to combat or bosses in DA3. Unfortunately this seems to be dead in RPG's nowadays some of my favorite bosses ever allowed me to talk some to death like the Master in Fallout 1.

Modifié par Skelter192, 12 juin 2012 - 09:08 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

@Ringo: re: talking down bosses, not necessarily. Might not count, but Letho at the end of Witcher 2 can just walk away. Depending on the choices you make, New Vegas allows you to talk two bosses down and get a robot to chuck one of them from the top of Hoover Dam. Even Fallout 3 allows you to talk down the final boss.

If Allan is actually going to read a tl;dr, I may try and get a write up happening, but the main sticking points are Game Mechanics that tell the Story and Cause/Effect.

[mopotter]

Playing TOR single player; have a DA"O almost done; paying some Torchlight I, a little Skyrim, visiting sites to talk to others about games. and yes, working.

[JediHealerCosmin]

Studying, a little LoL and some ME3 mp for now.

Gonna start my ultimate DA playoff soon, in which I prepare my save file for DA3. That means getting all of my choices ready and do every quest there is to do in both games. 

[Chromie]

mopotter wrote...

Playing TOR  single player

The Old Republic?

You have no idea how much that makes me cringe.

[The Elder King]

JediHealerCosmin wrote...

Studying, a little LoL and some ME3 mp for now.

Gonna start my ultimate DA playoff soon, in which I prepare my save file for DA3. That means getting all of my choices ready and do every quest there is to do in both games. 

I was thinking of doing that too. Though I hope that they'll create a decent import feature.

[TEWR]

CrustyBot wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

If TEWR was into Wasteland, he'd make you eat those words.

I started reading that document yesterday actually. It's a great read from what I've read so far and I might get the game when it comes out.

Haven't played the first Wasteland though, since it came out in 1988. From what I understand though, it was what prompted the Fallout series to emerge -- Fallout being the spiritual successor of sorts to Wasteland.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 juin 2012 - 11:15 .

[Dave of Canada]

Off-topic but...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Haven't played the first Wasteland though, since it came out in 1988. From what I understand though, it was what prompted the Fallout series to emerge -- Fallout being the spiritual successor of sorts to Wasteland.

Here you go.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 juin 2012 - 12:14 .

[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 .

[Chiramu]

ATM while Invulnerable Minions are being ****y to my Demon Hunter kiting playstyle I've been watching Dr Who . David Tennant is seriously awesome.

I hope Bioware sends a script over to him to try and get him to work on Dragon Age 3 .

[ElChipmunko]

Allan Schumacher
wrote...
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.

Read through it and will give your suggestion a shot, hehe.  My thoughts follow a general concept from the document that I try to tie into a Dragon Age(“DA”) based implementation.  Sorry for the essay, and feel free to delete the post. Also feel free to request further elaboration.

Who you choose for your team will add dimension to your party interactions, opening new possibilities for you to explore.
I like this concept.  Baldurs Gate did it well with certain characters interacting with NPCs differently or having conflicts with other potential party NPCs.  Additionally there were many different party members to choose from, which added potential variety for multiple playthroughs.  DA Origins also flirted with this concept a bit (i.e. kill companion, secret companion vs. previously established one).  What you could do in DA3 or whatever it is you guys are working on, is maybe expand upon this and allow for different NPC interactions depending upon which companion is within the party. 

I believe DA2 did a pretty good job of allowing different interactions, but it kind of lacked opening new possibilities.  For instance, say you take a certain companion into the deep roads, this companion knows a certain short cut to the ultimate destination that would not be available had you left this companion out of your party for the trip.  Additionally, this short cut consequently leads to a different boss encounter (in the interests of conserving resources maybe have similar mechanics/animations to an already existing boss) or treasure chest along the way.

As for allowing companion/team choice options, this may not be as feasible with dragon age, as it would require additional voice actors/other resources that would be wasted on consumers who did not choose that companion. However, rather than throw the concept out all together, I would suggest adding just one or two instances of a choice between companions.  DA2 had this, but I would recommend that instead of having a certain companion's presence be determined by class selection, allow for a dialogue-based interaction.

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.

I also think this concept would work well with DA.  For instance, DA could borrow the reputation system of games like Baldurs Gate (or something similar/more elaborate, i.e. game remembers certain choice made earlier in the
game) and have that dictate certain NPC reactions.  Ultimately, the goal is to have the environment/world more reactive to your choices as a player.  These reactions don’t necessarily have to cause divergent outcomes, but could be off-hand remarks.  For example, early in the game you choose to not accept a quest from a questgiver and punch him in the face.  Later in the game, his wife is a quest giver. Upon selecting her, she references your actions regarding her husband, and maybe delivers her request for aid differently, or not at all.  However, ultimately, the quest remains the same.

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.

This concept requires a bit of a qualification.  DA games are not “true rpgs” in the sense that options are somewhat restricted by the story.  This is totally cool, in fact, it is a good thing, as it allows for a great story to be
told.  You must give a little to get a lot in this instance, with the give being a more directed rpg experience as
opposed to a “sandbox-like” one.  However, I believe this concept can still be implemented into a DA game
somewhat, and already has to some extent. Certain portions of DA games must remain static, (i.e. you must go to
Orgrimmar, Brecillian, Redcliffe, Denerim). However, your choices in those static areas can affect the ultimate
outcome of the game (which armies you have, who’s alive, etc).  The next DA game potentially could expand upon this by allowing an outcome in one static area, to affect the choices available in another static area.  For instance, at Brecillian you side with one group, however, within Orgrimmar, certain denizens are completely against this Brecillian group.  As a result, you cannot ally with that Orgrimmar group.  Alternatively, you again side with the same Brecillian group, but instead or in addition to having that one group of Orgrimmar denizens unavailable, you gain access to another Orgrimmar group that would be unavailable to a player that did not side with that specific Brecillian group.  This leads to a chain of reactions that would build over the course of the game.  Again, this does not need to affect the static portions of the game that are required for the narrative, but can serve as “fluff” that distinguishes one playthrough from another.

Your choice of what statistics and skills you invest in gives your characters personality, gives you multiple quest solutions, and gives you the ability to role-play beyond simply Thief, Fighter, or Mage archetypes.

I like this idea and I believe it is a completely feasible addition to a DA game.  In fact, it was already in DA origins, with persuade/intimidate options, certain quests become available if you have certain crafting professions, and alternative avenues based upon statistics (dexterity, Isabela encounter, or intelligence leads to an intuitive solution to a problem rather than a violent one).  A revival of this for the next DA game would be great.

Band of Brothers vs NPCs

This was just a general concept outlined by the document, (i.e. you have your ranger companions in addition to npc companions).  I’m not sure this approach could be replicated for DA game has those games are very character driven, and a player-created companion would not be able to add to the narrative like a dev-created companion could.  However, I believe the concept still holds merit.  For instance, some NPC characters will question orders you give while the rangers will blindly follow.  I believe this concept can be transferred to a DA game by writing certain companions to have a close connection to the player character and/or the player character’s general purpose.  For example, in DA origins, you and Alistair belong to the same organization and have a common purpose.  By contrast, Morrigan has her own motivations/goals yet there is still room for common ground.  It would not be too difficult to create a situation where a character like Alistair would take a direction without question, while a Morrigan-like character would refuse the same direction, or at least question it.  Additionally, who the player chooses to perform the action could result in different outcomes, (think Mass Effect 2 suicide mission). These different outcomes again would not necessarily need to affect the overall narrative, but the details surrounding it.

A Beckoning World, Not a Forced March

Again, as I stated earlier, a DA game requires a forced march to some extent, and that is perfectly fine.  However, this does not mean certain “beckoning world” additions cannot be made.  For instance, say you are trekking through kirkwall, minding your own business, when you hear a faint sound off in the distance (or see a random cat run through a wall, etc.). You investigate, and as you draw near, the (sound or cat) becomes clearer.  You take a corner, and there, far off the beaten path, is an additional tavern, the Hanged Woman.  This tavern has a unique vendor, a couple of npcs to interact with, and various comments from your companions.  This tavern is a reward for exploration and has no effect on the game’s overall story whatsoever. 

Modding

I like it, however don’t know much about it.  If it isn’t hard/costly to add back in, I say go for it.  Allows for the game to persist/expand indefinitely. 

Humor

I’d say DA and the writers have this down pat.  I mention it only to point out how awesome it is and how well it has been done in past DA games.

One Goal, Multiple Paths

I think that this concept is generally the most important.  Most people I have talked to prefer to have multiple paths to choose from within their games.  Ultimately, a DA game must follow a general path as required by the narrative. However, I believe that this general path can have parallels that provide a high level of variety.  I can get into this more, but it would probably require spoilerish examples to be effective.

Back On Topic: What are you doing while waiting for DA3?

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

Modifié par ElChipmunko, 13 juin 2012 - 11:05 .

[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).

[AndrahilAdrian]

Skelter192 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Playing TOR  single player

The Old Republic?

You have no idea how much that makes me cringe.

Agreed. Expletive TOR. MMOS are my least favorite genre, and I think its a crying shame BW is devoting such significant resources to that boondoggle when they could be making fantastic story-driven single-player games like Dragon Age. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just as an example, BIoWare has never done a "full open party" game (there's always been a defined protagonist)

True, but recall that BG (and BG2, but in BG2 it appears to have been unintended, while in BG it was a documented feature) the team assembled by the protagonist could assign party roles however the player saw fit.  Subsequent BioWare games have insisted that the protagonist always be the team leader, the spokesperson, the face of the party.  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'd love to see the player have more control over the party in this way.