370 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^

As per Allan's post and the violations of USFEO (2013), please ignore most of my last comment. The dudebro abides.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 février 2013 - 11:04 .

[Chromie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Lets reign this back in from the economics for how we should target the game (which is probably a violation of some new bylaws people were suggesting ), as well as what constitutes a "real" game (because that just makes me irritable), and discuss what things people liked about The Witcher that they think would be an improvement in DA3.

Witcher 2 improved on the quest design. I can't really remember any fedex quests that are just "collect X item" except the Harpy feather quest which was added later as a joke.

[Xewaka]

To answer to the thread original question, apart from the already made point of a more "dramatic" branching, there is one thing from The Witcher I want to see in Dragon Age.

EPIC. DORF. BEARDS.

[upsettingshorts]

Skelter192 wrote...

Witcher 2 improved on the quest design. I can't really remember any fedex quests that are just "collect X item" except the Harpy feather quest which was added later as a joke.

Coincidentally, the thing that made me put down The Witcher 2 forever was a "kill X monsters" quest.  

The parts where Geralt actually has to be a Witcher are, to me, uniformly tedious and non-interesting.

But as many have pointed out, that's hardly the whole game, just enough of it for me to lose interest.

[BombThatDeadGuy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Lets reign this back in from the economics for how we should target the game (which is probably a violation of some new bylaws people were suggesting ), as well as what constitutes a "real" game (because that just makes me irritable), and discuss what things people liked about The Witcher that they think would be an improvement in DA3.

From what I've heard most people really liked the graphics from the witcher 2, it looks beautiful even on consoles.

Another thing is that it has some of the better morality choices from an RPG there's not many missions that are clear cut on what's good and what's bad and it shows what happens after you've made your choices at the end in cutscenes with a narrator telling what just happened. Finally there's one big choice with Roche or Iorveth that changes 2/3rds of the game

Next, it's combat relies on alot of tatics, it's not simple and requires thought which appeals moreso to hardcore gamers and less to casual gamers, casual gamers will have a hard time with the witcher series.

Last thing and i know this will get compared to Dragon Age eventually but because the Witcher shows nudity people will compare the Witcher's scenes to Dragon Age scenes and be like "Why no nudity in this game, this is dumb, I'm going to make out with Triss."

What Dragon Age did better

It has more customization with armor, character, weapons, and even personality. I would much rather be Hawke than Geralt anyday.

It's easier to figure out what to do, I don't know how many Witcher 2 players had this issue but it took forever to figure out what you need to do on some of these quests, it mostly happens on side mission especially the monster hunting quests.

If I have to spend 45 mins looking for where nekkar nests are just to find out that I need bombs to do this and then don't even tell me where to get these bombs then I'm switching over to fight High Dragons in DA2.

Third, you can drink potions in battle.

Lastly it's easier to jump into than the Witcher, Witcher 2 had a really bad tutorial and a confusing opening for new players who haven't played the first Witcher namely anyone who got it on the consoles.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Honestly, more Origins, less Dragon Age 2. I don't think The Witcher even plays into it at all. Those two games are so different from each other.

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Experimenting with branching narrative would be the biggest (and probably most challenging) one that I would like to see. This is more from the second game obviously.

I have some reservations with the way it was executed from a narrative perspective (and just minor ones), but the concept itself I find fascinating.

I agree, but I wonder if the better (and more realistic) option would be recasting missions, rather than branching narratives.

The branching narrative idea more or less relies on the idea that the story truly diverges: tone, missions, context, all distinct from eachother. The Witcher 2 does this, and does this well, but it's a major duplication of resources for parallel story lines when you recreate every aspect of the game.

I think Bioware could probably get away with good effect if Choices and Consequences cast themselves in terms of taking the same levels and re-casting them in terms of enemies and context, but not the overall story. Changes that would flow as a result of Consequences, without changing the overall narrative.

The hypothetical example I like to make for this idea is the hypothetical 'what if' of 'what if ME's Lazarus Station had you fighting Cerberus scientists if you did the ME1 Cerberus missions?'

In terms of the narrative, Lazarus Station fills a role of tutorial, a near-death experience after Shepard's ressurection, an info dump in the past, and an initial exposure to Cerberus's ruthlessness (via Miranda) and pragmatic appeal (Jacob's help, them bringing you back).

In canon, the mission plays 'best' for Shepards who never did the Cerberus missions. Cerberus is a hazy memory at best, some extremist group, but they're clearly on your side here.

But imagine if Wilson betrayed Cerberus in a different manner if Shepard had a bad past with Cerberus? 'Helpiing' Shepard 'escape', Wilson tries to cast himself as the good guy: instead of rampant mechs, Shepard fights palate-swapped Cerberus scientists with tranquilizer guns, until Shepard is led to the part of the station in which Shepard releases the mechs to go rampant. Miranda at this time is an oppositional, seemingly hostile figure heard from the intercoms and data logs. Jacob, perhaps claiming to be undercover Alliance, is still ingratiated with Shepard... but Wilson and Jacob clearly don't trust eachother, leading to tensions.

Ultimately, Miranda and Jacob reveal the truth, prove Wilson is the traitor, and save Shepard from a backstab. Shepard alive, grudgingly agrees to meet the Illusive Man... but only after wiping out Lazarus Station, setting a tone of bad blood that can either be overcome (if Shepard chooses a pro-Cerberus game) or simply sets the tone for the rest of the game (if Shepard is anti-Cerberus).



In the narrative, it serves most of the same role: Cerberus is introduced, the initial hook for Shepard giving them a chance is established, a tutorial mission with the backdrop of treachery and a blood bath is the start of the relatioship. In the mechancis and resources, there's also a lot of similarities: skin-swaps can replace Loki's with Cerberus scientists, the same level is used, and the same voice actors. The key differences are the dialogue, and the flavor text/pacing.

It's still an investment, in dialogue and planning and effort, but it seems to me that such a thing would be far more realistic than an entire branching narrative, especially when a better context is imagined.

Take a 'choose your faction' delimma in which you side with A or B. Using the same level with the same maps, if you side with A then you go through the map left to right, and if you side with B you go right to left. The order of encounters would affect your perspective (remember: first impressions), while slight changes could be used to justify changing them based on your decision. An early encounter in which you protect/heal a wounded pair of lovers of A, for example, turns into a later encounter in which a lover fights to the death to defeat you, the agent of B.

[Roflbox]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The parts where Geralt actually has to be a Witcher are, to me, uniformly tedious and non-interesting.

Well he had to be a Witcher when attempting to study and kill the Kayran and removing the Blood curse.

[BombThatDeadGuy]

Roflbox wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The parts where Geralt actually has to be a Witcher are, to me, uniformly tedious and non-interesting.

Well he had to be a Witcher when attempting to study and kill the Kayran and removing the Blood curse.

I think what he's talking about is the contract missions where you had to kill nekkars, harpies, rotfiends, gargoyles and such and they were a pain in the ass to finish.

[upsettingshorts]

I dislike those the most, yes.

But in general I dislike "kill the monster" quest no matter how big the beast is, or how involved the investigation might be.

So you can imagine how I feel about Darkspawn.

[Fast Jimmy]

Take a 'choose your faction' delimma in which you side with A or B. Using the same level with the same maps, if you side with A then you go through the map left to right, and if you side with B you go right to left. The order of encounters would affect your perspective (remember: first impressions), while slight changes could be used to justify changing them based on your decision. An early encounter in which you protect/heal a wounded pair of lovers of A, for example, turns into a later encounter in which a lover fights to the death to defeat you, the agent of B.

Lots of problems on my end with this.

First, the player didn't know they were making a faction choice in ME1 when they did those quests. Shepherd showed up, bad guys started shooting, Shepherd shot back and shot last. He never made a statement about the concepts Cerebrus introduced, he just knew that Allaince brass sent him to investigate and that what he found tried to kill him. To say you did those missions in ME1, when there was no choice in said mission, shouldn't mean you by default are against these scientists who just spent a not-so-small fortune bringing you back to life.

Second, I don't see how killing all the Cerberus scientists can make Shepherd seem okay with working with Jacob and Miranda, let alone TIM. Killing a group of people who worked tirelessly to save your life and who are using non-lethal tranquilizer guns to take you down and then die by Shepherd's hand is hardly the right role for a Paragon (which, being an anti-Cerberus character, I'd assume you'd be).

Thirdly, it doesn't tell a different or better story. Sure, Shepherd gets to appear as an anti-Cereberus character, but does killing a different subset of bad guys give us anymore insight or perspective on the level or what is going on? It's still just shooting to get to the next point. Arguably, it limits he interaction you start out with from Jacob and Miranda, permanent companions. Can you imagine the outcry for Renegade players getting more companion face time than Paragons?


Maybe your example level may have produced too many holes to poke in, but all in all, I don't think a Sav Import should ever decide who your character is siding with in a current game. Circumstances change, as do alliances. I wouldn't want to be pigeon holed into belonging to one side versus another without getting input.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 février 2013 - 12:17 .

[Andronic0s]

IMO I think Alpha Protocol is a better game for Bioware to "learn" from than the witcher (thats not to say the witcher is not good)

Alpha incorporates a design feature BW is very fond of, namely the ability to head to different "quest zones" in different order, while adding a rather complex branching storyline that hinges on two things: the order in which you do the quests, and how you interact with NPCs and complete said quests, to the point that the game has two completely different endgame bosses.

The only thing I see the witcher has that could benefit BW design is in how some decisions you do in chapter 1 affect rather drastically some of the quests you do in chapter 3, so that people still get to influence the story but makes it time consuming for the player to try to replay a quest to get a "better" ending, thus avoinding things like the Leandra fiasco in DA2.

Modifié par Andronic0s, 02 février 2013 - 12:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Take a 'choose your faction' delimma in which you side with A or B. Using the same level with the same maps, if you side with A then you go through the map left to right, and if you side with B you go right to left. The order of encounters would affect your perspective (remember: first impressions), while slight changes could be used to justify changing them based on your decision. An early encounter in which you protect/heal a wounded pair of lovers of A, for example, turns into a later encounter in which a lover fights to the death to defeat you, the agent of B.

Lots of problems on my end with this.

First, the player didn't know they were making a faction choice in ME1 when they did those quests. Shepherd showed up, bad guys started shooting, Shepherd shot back and shot last. He never made a statement about the concepts Cerebrus introduced, he just knew that Allaince brass sent him to investigate and that what he found tried to kill him. To say you did those missions in ME1, when there was no choice in said mission, shouldn't mean you by default are against these scientists who just spent a not-so-small fortune bringing you back to life.

Understandable, but not the point: rather than the context setting up the divergence, the example is intended to illustrate the relative similarity the missions could have despite different contexts. With Wilson dialogue-swapping with Miranda, and a reskin of the mechs in the initial phases, many of the same tools to create the level could be reused.

Second, I don't see how killing all the Cerberus scientists can make Shepherd seem okay with working with Jacob and Miranda, let alone TIM. Killing a group of people who worked tirelessly to save your life and who are using non-lethal tranquilizer guns to take you down and then die by Shepherd's hand is hardly the right role for a Paragon (which, being an anti-Cerberus character, I'd assume you'd be).

Anti-Cerberus was never a particularly Paragon attitude, in ME1, 2 or 3. ME2 gave you a few Choices, but the dialogue regularly flip-flopped. SInce taking the missions was only 'paragon' in the sense that the Renegade position is also the 'refuse quest' position, there's no P/R imbalance... but, again, the example isn't on the basis of the setup, but the parallel execution.

In this context, the example comes in the manner of how Jacob and Miranda expose Wilson's duplicity, rescue Shepard from a Wilson backstab, and otherwise earn that 'one chance' that leads into the first mission of Freedom's Progress. It's not about making Shepard seem ok with Cerberus, as much as it making Shepard give Cerberus a chance to make their initial case. In the buildup before or even after Freedom's Progress, Shepard can certainly be free to be incredibly skeptical of the two and Cerberus as a whole.

Thirdly, it doesn't tell a different or better story. Sure, Shepherd gets to appear as an anti-Cereberus character, but does killing a different subset of bad guys give us anymore insight or perspective on the level or what is going on? It's still just shooting to get to the next point. Arguably, it limits he interaction you start out with from Jacob and Miranda, permanent companions. Can you imagine the outcry for Renegade players getting more companion face time than Paragons?

It would be different in the same way the Genophage arc differs with with the change of Wrex and Wreave, or Mordin and Paddok. It certainly is 'different', and I'd argue that many would find that opportunity to fill an alternative roll as an improvement on the story. The tone of the player-Cerberus relationship could be entirely re-cast by the difference of the first impressions and initial interactions with Jacob and Miranda: one in which Cerberus is sympathetic, helpful, and generous, while in the other the dominant tones are suspicion, past hostility, and barely restrained tension.

Maybe your example level may have produced too many holes to poke in, but all in all, I don't think a Sav Import should ever decide who your character is siding with in a current game. Circumstances change, as do alliances. I wouldn't want to be pigeon holed into belonging to one side versus another without getting input.

Here's the thing, though: it wouldn't be dictating who you side with. It would only dictate your first impressions by setting a different tone at the start.

Regardless of which mission you take, Shepard ends up working with Cerberus: the Council won't help, the Alliance can't, and Cerberus is the only game in town that recognizes the Reaper threat and is willing to give Shepard the resources to face them. That's the reason why Shepard works with Cerberus, and that doesn't change: only whether you get off to a bad start, or a good start. Ultimately you still win over the crew over the course of the game as you earn their Loyalty, and Shepard's relationship with Cerberus will increasingly be dominated by ME2 events going forward (Horizon, the Collector trap, the Collector Base) rather than the past. By the end of the game, the Lazarus mission would barely warrant a footnote in dialogue ('we got off to a bad start...').


I certainly agree that the set up for the divergence is flawed: an actual divergence mission would have the luxury of planning a better setup. A time-sensitive Feros, in which the number of colonists surviving and the state of the colony depend on how long it takes you to show up. A Suicide Mission in which you choose which of the parallel routes you wish to take, leaving the other team to take the Path Not Taken with different Specialist Requirements and mutually exclusive level segments. A Geth Consensus mission in which the Geth perspectives and memories of the Quarians are heavily changed depending on Past Choices, with some alternatives far less sympathetic to the geth, while still ultimately leading to the canonical end result.

[Mazebook]

As someone who really dislikes the Witcher 1 and 2, I hope Bioware does not take to much away from it. There are just too many instances where the inexperience of the witcher dev team showed through poor design choices.
I really hope Bioware just keeps doing their own thing...moving the genre forward.

Modifié par maaaze, 02 février 2013 - 12:51 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I tend to agree with you, OP.

1. DA's dialogues are more about how things are said than what effects they have. Especially DA2's system that keeps track of how the player responds to determine the intonation of dialogue. It is intended to give a more realistic feeling, but because it usually doesn't matter how you respond (the game plays out the same), I am often disappointed. In TW2 what you decide may or may not actually change the story in such a way that it gives access to exclusive content - sometimes large story branches. That causes me to be more aware of what is being said and what I am going to respond.

2. The NPCs in BW's worlds are much like static stage pieces. An example of DA:O are the guys gossiping in Denerim, who are the very same guys that are gossiping just outside of Orzammar. I wished they were less static and that they had different faces and clothing in those two places. Another example: Some NPCs only seem to exist in DA's cinematics. In Legacy you can see foes in a cinematic that are supposed to follow you or are traveling towards you in the distance (near the end of the DLC). However, once the sequence ends, they disappear in thin air. You can try to go to that location, but they were not really there. The ones you do encounter seem to be dropping in the scene once you reach a certain location in that level. In games like Skyrim the NPCs actually live their own little lives and follow their own path and rarely pop in a scene. What you see stays there (unless you kill it). Even TW2 has that illusion, eventhough it is not a true open world. Both of these games can't hold a candle against the superb cinematics of DA and rarely have those, but at least the way their NPCs behave and interact give a less gamey and less static illusion.

3. I like the feel of the world of TW1 and even more TW2. Those worlds aren't really open. They make you feel they are, but they are much like those in BW's games: Stages were quests play. The difference is that they are vast and more detailed and less generic than those in DA. I really like the scenery of TW2.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 février 2013 - 01:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I certainly agree that the set up for the divergence is flawed: an actual divergence mission would have the luxury of planning a better setup. A time-sensitive Feros, in which the number of colonists surviving and the state of the colony depend on how long it takes you to show up. A Suicide Mission in which you choose which of the parallel routes you wish to take, leaving the other team to take the Path Not Taken with different Specialist Requirements and mutually exclusive level segments. A Geth Consensus mission in which the Geth perspectives and memories of the Quarians are heavily changed depending on Past Choices, with some alternatives far less sympathetic to the geth, while still ultimately leading to the canonical end result.

I think we are getting way off topic here, so I'll keep this brief.

I don't neccessarily agree with many of your responses, but I do like this idea and have argued for it in the past. Choosing the order in which you do missions should have impacts in how things play out. ME1 toyed with this, having Liara being starved and delirious when you arrived if you saved her mission for last, and ME2 flirted with it as well having your crew be liquefied if you took too many other missions after the attack on the Normandy. But I'd like to see it taken to a whole different level where there are real, significant outcomes to saving a mission for later.

Maybe a "perfect, best" scenario can be achieved for each area you visit, but only if you visit it first. Then, each subsequent area you go to, things are progressively worse for them. In DA:O, this could mean that the Elves and werewolves can both be saved if the quest is done first, but that if it is saved for last, nearly all the Dalish are dead or infected, leaving you no choice but to cure the Wolves and receive no army, or bind them to your cause by letting them have revenge with the last Dalish survivors.

It could introduce a whole different level of hard choices, where you have to choose who gets the short end of the stick and who gets the rainbows and lollipops.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I happen to like having variety in my games, and I've come to accept the fact that Bioware wouldn't be able to portray certain things, such as political intrigue or great philosophical reflections, so what I would want Bioware to learn from The Witcher is pretty minimal.

The one thing I can pinpoint that I think Bioware should put much more effort into even if they don't do it exactly like TW2, is C&C.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 février 2013 - 01:24 .

[addiction21]

I want BIoWares DA3 just like I would want CDPRs Witcher 3.

[Allan Schumacher]

The branching narrative idea more or less relies on the idea that the story truly diverges: tone, missions, context, all distinct from eachother. The Witcher 2 does this, and does this well, but it's a major duplication of resources for parallel story lines when you recreate every aspect of the game.

It is more work, yes. In order to do it, we'd likely have to sacrifice some depth for breadth.

I guess imagine if there was 30-40 hours of unique content, but we ended up delivering with a branch that basically has 2 mostly unique 15-20 hours branches.

It'd make the game shorter which does have some consequences: For those that feel a story needs the length in order to properly flesh things out, this is still a negative. For those that feel our games are too long, this may be a positive. For those that want total value of the game and typically replay it, there's still 30-40 hours of fresh gameplay. Those that don't typically replay but still typically finish, however, will have less content.

[mickey111]

sex

[Siegdrifa]

Something i loved in TW2 is how i could change the patern of tactics for a same fight.

I could either stun the guy and hit him in the back, or wait for him to attack first and do a counter, or throw knife and kill him before he reach me... it was really depending on my mood.
In DA2 i always ended doing the same patern, same skill order, same ccc order... if the dev could give more diversity to accomplish the same fight with the same team in a few different way, that would be great.

Also, i liked in TW2 how i felt my templete feel complet for what i wanted to achieve; it's impossible to take all perfk, but enough to think you don't need anything else at high level.
In DA2, even at level max, i feel i'm always not complet and missing a few skills.

What else... I liked in TW2 the fact that Geralt could interact more with the world than just walk / talk / fight in DA2. We could jump down, climb, harvest componant, play mini game, and all special event depending of the mission (sneak, spy through window etc).

From a story telling and branching point of view, i was amazed how we could end up being friends or foes with so many NPC depending on how much trust we put in them and their story.

[mickey111]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The branching narrative idea more or less relies on the idea that the story truly diverges: tone, missions, context, all distinct from eachother. The Witcher 2 does this, and does this well, but it's a major duplication of resources for parallel story lines when you recreate every aspect of the game.

It is more work, yes. In order to do it, we'd likely have to sacrifice some depth for breadth.

I guess imagine if there was 30-40 hours of unique content, but we ended up delivering with a branch that basically has 2 mostly unique 15-20 hours branches.

It'd make the game shorter which does have some consequences: For those that feel a story needs the length in order to properly flesh things out, this is still a negative. For those that feel our games are too long, this may be a positive. For those that want total value of the game and typically replay it, there's still 30-40 hours of fresh gameplay. Those that don't typically replay but still typically finish, however, will have less content.

I'd want a large amount of divergence before I'm convinved to replay a game based on story related reasons. Thinking Fallout 1/2/new vegas, alpha protocol/witcher 2 levels. Biowares reputation... yeah, it's just not on the level. It's more similar to Deus Ex in regards to divurgence, but the thing with deus Ex is that the levels were designed in a way that you could proceed through the game in basically any manner of your choosing.  Could be a heavy weapons guy, a plain old run and gun person, a hacker, a ninja, asasssin, burglar, jedi (seriously, you get a weapon that looks a lot like a lightsaber). The options were just beyond most people wildest imaginations to be honest. Plenty of character builds to suit all kind of RPG needs or wants.

So I'd like Bioware to be more like any of the above examples if I'm to find the motivation for replays.

Modifié par mickey111, 02 février 2013 - 01:33 .