Game News Dragon Age semi-annual update

[Deacdo]

Maybe the game will be highly modable. At this point that seems like the best thing we can hope for in an RPG.

 

[Castanova]

its bad is that the NPCs that joined the party will follow as the good sheep they to the "base camp" so intead of having a personality and go around on their own.

Whether you like it or not, Dragon Age is a narrative based RPG. It's not Ultima VII, Daggerfall, or Gothic. There's not going to be a living breathing world that runs on its own schedule with people going to bed, drinking beer, and picking their noses whether you're around or not. How are characters in a narrative based RPG going to "go around on their own" ? In Baldur's Gate 2, which Bioware developed, characters that you didn't use went back to their original location in town (at least, before the expansion). That's probably as good as it can get.

Bingo, you get a bunch of silly archtypes.

TOEE had about a billion NPCs to choose from. I didn't hear anybody complaining about that. And who said you're stuck with your NPCs? Gaider didn't. For all you know, you could dismiss them at any moment (the non-essential ones, that is).

I lost Misc once from a pretification followed by beaking the statue ... could not be raised my any means.

... except using the level 200,000 super-spell called "Quickload."

 

[Mr.Rocco]

Is Dragon Age a korean JRPG?

Because its starts to look like one ...

There's Korean rpg? I thought only games they play are starcraft and mmo.
Seriously though, do they really have crpg? I'm genuinely curious to see what kind of games they have for rpg genre. Anyone here with good knowledge on Korean/Japanese games shed some light? Btw, I'm talking about pc game not console.

 

[Voss]

OK, I'm all for bashing recent Bioware games

But some of the complaints about Dragon Age in this thread are really grasping at straws.

Oversensitive much? This wasn't bashing. Toss me something I really don't like and I'll show you the difference beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Huh? Without knowing how it's implemented how can you possibly make a judgment about this? Why is having a base camp bad? Because all RPGs must involve a party wandering around homeless? In my mind, NOT having a base camp is retarded unless your characters like to make camps in the woods despite being two steps away from a town.

Easily. Unless the game is centered around a very small region, it doesn't make sense to keep a 'base camp'. (Admittedly, its part of the baggage of the genre, but most quests involve travelling) See, if you are two steps away from a town, there are things called Inns. And possibly homes, if you are in a small region.
But small regions aren't Epic, so that seems unlikely anyway.

You must be joking. You disapprove of the fact that you have a choice of NPCs? Unless they have so many NPC choices that the quality of each individual is diluted, what could possibly be your complaint about this? That's like being disappointed that Doom contained more weapons than Wolfenstein.

No. I object to the fact that people you aren't actually working with are shambling along behind you like good little sheep, rather than staying home. (Where you could *gasp* find them if you need them). Add in the non-fun of must-have unkillable, always in the group (if not party) because the story script breaks down if {Object not found} pops up in the code... well. That and the inevitable pops up into a plot point conversation from 5 miles away (because you hate them so much you left them in the base camp) because they're involved in the plot and it can't carry on without them... bleh.
And lets see, 'so many NPC choices that the quality of each is diluted?'
Hmm.
Kotor... beepy robot. Check. Wookie. Check.
Jade Empire... drunken master. Check. Big axe guy. Check. (To be fair, the initial concepts were interesting, but the game for some reason failed to do anything with them, except of course, the big guy bursting into the arena to babble about the brother that you didn't know/care about anyway. From the base camp, since there was never any reason to bring any NPC along with you besides Chi Recharge Girl)

I don't see the point of tying the story to specific NPCs to the point of 'you have to have them with you, and can never get rid of them'. The events are still going on, regardless of some random person's existence. (If Bush died, there would still be problems in Iraq, for example). Making so and so a 'key' to solving the crisis (or whatever) is just lazy writing. Dealing with the consequences would be much more fun. As would just dealing with the event without necessarily dragging said 'key' along.

This is how every single RPG in the world works except for roguelikes. The only difference is, after a battle you don't need to hit the Rest button 8 times so you can re-memorize the Resurrection spell. As far as the flood of streamlining in modern RPGs goes, this is virtully a non-issue.

Wrong. Just... so wrong. There are games other than BG 1 and 2 you know.

 

[Sarvis]

You are taking that out of context.

No, you just failed to say what you meant. What you _meant_ was "It would be pure gold if characters in an RPG would react to death in <i>exactly the way I think they should, and no other.</i>

Drama by no means has to be shallow teenager emo crap. I am not talking about "Sniff, my friend died, i am going to suicide myself by jumping into the burning pyre where his body lies" but more about the game reacting to the death of your characters in a believable way. People is sometimes scarred for life because of the death of someone dear, and that changes them - usually not into emo idiots who can't cope with their adolescent and superficial feelings.

So characters should react to deaths, and be scarred for life... but not cry?

The death of a character could open an entire new tree of sidequests, bring interesting and well written consequences, change parts of the gameworld fully.

Really? Why? Most of the time when someone dies, there's very little effect on the world at all.

How would that be anywhere near the scripted death and immature drama of Final Fantasy VII?

Ok, it wouldn't. But that doesn't mean that the story of FFVII was bad just because you can imagine something else. Nor does it mean that what you imagine would actually make for a good game.

 

[Rat Keeng]

And who said you're stuck with your NPCs? Gaider didn't. For all you know, you could dismiss them at any moment (the non-essential ones, that is).

Yeah, gotta keep the essential ones around for that shock horror twist ending.
"I'm afraid not, Kyle! You see, I was working for the Wall-mart all along!"

I'm generally against all those freakishly convoluted and "deep" followers you can pick up in some RPGs, because it usually means you'll need to keep them around, both for story and combat reasons. It'd be nice if the game allowed you to disregard all those walking identity crises, and just hire some fucking mercenaries instead.

 

[Drakron]

Whether you like it or not, Dragon Age is a narrative based RPG. It's not Ultima VII, Daggerfall, or Gothic.

Translation:

Its a jRPG.

There's not going to be a living breathing world that runs on its own schedule with people going to bed, drinking beer, and picking their noses whether you're around or not.

In short, just like in jRPGs.

How are characters in a narrative based RPG going to "go around on their own" ?

You mean like in jRPGs?

I could say how a character in a cRPG can go around on its own, meaning if you ditch the character from the party instead of acting like a dog and follow the party around he goes to a set location, be it his house or the inn.

In Baldur's Gate 2, which Bioware developed, characters that you didn't use went back to their original location in town (at least, before the expansion). That's probably as good as it can get.

Actually now that I think of it, many just stick around a inn (Yoshimo did, I recall that) but some did go to other locations, I remenber the Paladin goes back to the "Order of something" in the Temple district despite his original location being the sewers.

TOEE had about a billion NPCs to choose from. I didn't hear anybody complaining about that.

People complained about the NPCs well enough, a lot due to then being "thieves" and they were henchman, not "party members".

And who said you're stuck with your NPCs? Gaider didn't. For all you know, you could dismiss them at any moment (the non-essential ones, that is).

That is because you dont read the fine print ... developers today are like politicians and their statements are full of hidden meaning.

Lets see:

NPC's who have joined you stay when they're not in your immediate party.
The other potential NPC's are all completely optional.

Its similar how HK-47 and the Cathar Jedi were optional, you did not had to add then to the party but the moment you decided to take then ...

... except using the level 200,000 super-spell called "Quickload."

Except my last save was about 2 hours before that and yes, there is a quick save and a quick load button but sould it be a complement to gameplay and balance mechanics or simply a way for us to save progress without having to go over several menus?

 

[Drakron]

There's Korean rpg? I thought only games they play are starcraft and mmo.
Seriously though, do they really have crpg? I'm genuinely curious to see what kind of games they have for rpg genre. Anyone here with good knowledge on Korean/Japanese games shed some light? Btw, I'm talking about pc game not console.

Magna Carta is a korean RPG, it was ported to the PS2 but it was originaly a PC game.

I dont know what else, from what I take from the Korean market is that is somewhat closed (like like the japanese PC game market).

 

[The Rambling Sage]

No, you just failed to say what you meant. What you _meant_ was "It would be pure gold if characters in an RPG would react to death in exactly the way I think they should, and no other.

I always thought RPGs were meant to have good writing, in depth character interaction and development, and a world that reacts to most events. Sue me for thinking that it would be pure gold if things were somewhat less simplistic and dumbed-down.

So characters should react to deaths, and be scarred for life... but not cry?

Characters should react to deaths, be scarred for life if its logical to the interaction existing between the dead character and the reacting one, and do not make a big fuss about how bad they feel, nor have the entire party patting their backs and giving them "Group Hugs" while the world is about being destroyed. Total indiference make the interaction shallow, just like over reacting.

Really? Why? Most of the time when someone dies, there's very little effect on the world at all.

Usually when you go for a walk through the forest you do not have to face the endless forces of the undead and their rusty swords. We are talking about games, and as such of things related to fiction and mythology, not the real world - look the mythologies of the world and see how much on those stories a single death can change the outcome of entire kingdoms.

And i never said how big the gameworld would be - You can have a RPG based on two feudal lords fighting over some neverlasting family feud and that would be the entire gameworld as far as the story is concerned: Two castles and the lands in between. So if one of your companions is the heir to one of the lords and he dies, at least half the gameworld would go through some noticeable changes. Most probably both halves.

Also, changes in the gameworld does not have to cover the entire gameworld: If there is a moderate change in some area then it already would be better than what we usually have, and those changes do not need to be epical in nature. If one of yours companions is from a small village and he dies, some of the villagers should be changed to reflect the aftermath of his death, and this does not imply great epic quests or people crying at the streets, but small quests of a more "personal" nature, and a far more deep interaction with the world around you, including insight on secondary characters and what not. Sometimes a single and small "tragedy" is enought for someone to reinforce or question his own worldview, and that shift would be interesting to see and explore, instead of just "Fuck, i need to recruit a new swordman ASAP."

That without even mentioning that when the solution of a important "puzzle" may be the death of one of your characters for things he was not in control or may not even know, a character that saved your butt many times and who had a deep well-written background and interactions, the "choices" stop being good or bad simplistic ones.

But maybe i am acustomed to other kind of stories that do not need of dragons and fairy princess to be interesting, and am able to see what could be interesting about a complex story backed with a deep web of relationships covering just a small area, and what the roleplaying posibilities of such design choices would be.

Ok, it wouldn't. But that doesn't mean that the story of FFVII was bad just because you can imagine something else. Nor does it mean that what you imagine would actually make for a good game.

The story of FFVII was bad because it was targeted to teenagers who had not a freakin' idea of what is a good story. Every single Final Fantasy suffered from that: A story that tries to be complex and dark, but falls short because it must be told through means of codes and symbols a run-of-the-mill young adolescent can understand at face value. No story can be good if so told, as is shown by Anne Rice every single time she publish something.



Lets not hijack this thread. We are here to bash Dragon Age in response to the newer... errr... news, not to discuss RPG development principles, and i can live without a reputation of compulsive thread hijacking.

 

[Dgaider]

Wow.

You guys take some of my responses out of context, add on several layers of assumptions of what DA is obviously going to be about and then start working yourselves up into an indignant lather based on that.

Normally I would be at least annoyed, but in this case it's just kind of funny. Talk about grasping at straws.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Wow.

You guys take some of my responses out of context, add on several layers of assumptions of what DA is obviously going to be about and then start working yourselves up into an indignant lather based on that.

Normally I would be at least annoyed, but in this case it's just kind of funny. Talk about grasping at straws.

Maybe you could go through the AoD forums to get some ideas about how to keep a relationship in between a developer and could-be fans working. And, leaving that aside, this is a forum, a thing intended for debate and discussion.

So, given that, could you please explain why do we have it all mixed up and downright wrong so we may be enlightened about our mistakes instead of you just going "You got it all wrong but i am not going to explain to you?" - That attitude alone screams of "You got it right but i am in denial."

That, and it would be interesting to hear your answers to the points here exposed that you say are so blatantly wrong. If you had the time to post that then you have the time to post a somewhat more deep and insightful commentary. Since we are all wrong, clean the floor with the dying corpses of our short-sighted commentaries and be done with it.

Maybe you are going to find this disrespectful, but that is not the idea. Not the main one, at least.

 

[Volourn]

"Final Fantasy alert here. All your resurrection spells and items are inefective if a character was killed by a Plot Gun. So much promise this game showed when the hype was young."

Moron. Resurrection spells don't exist in the DA universe. Dumbass.


"Maybe you could go through the AoD forums to get some ideas about how to keep a relationship in between a developer and could-be fans working. And, leaving that aside, this is a forum, a thing intended for debate and discussion."

NEWSFLASH: Even with Mr. Gaider posting here, BIo doesn't give a damn about the Codex. And, for obvious reasons.

1) The Codex isn't their target audience.

2) The Codexers will likely buy BIO games anyways 'cause they cjust cna't help themselves so there is NO motivation for BIO to make games just to please the Codex. They'd rather please the 'masses'. You know, the ones who buy tehir games in the hundreds of thosuands if not millions that justify the funds and people pured into game.

In essence, the Codex means nothing.


"Maybe you could go through the AoD forums to get some ideas about how to keep a relationship in between a developer and could-be fans working"

No offense to VD as his game sounds great. that's not sarcastic. But, him posting about his game her eis like preahcing to the choir. 99% of the posts in that forum (including mine) are 'VD rocks', 'this game is awesome'. It takes ZERO skill for VD to post about his game ON THE CODEX WHICH HE DOMINATES !!!!

In conclusion, I may be a dumbfuck; but you are a fucking moron.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[spacemoose]

I've found a great way to make Volourn's posts even more entertaining: read them in the voice of Napoleon Dynamite

 

[Sarvis]

I always thought RPGs were meant to have good writing, in depth character interaction and development, and a world that reacts to most events.

Well, you were wrong. That has nothing to do with being an RPG, and could be implemented in any style of gameplay. However I really don't feel like going into that argument right now.

Sue me for thinking that it would be pure gold if things were somewhat less simplistic and dumbed-down.

I never said that was a bad thing to wish for, I just pointed out a contradiction you made by not being overly clear. That said, keep dreaming... because I doubt you'll ever see the kind of game you want.

And i never said how big the gameworld would be - You can have a RPG based on two feudal lords fighting over some neverlasting family feud and that would be the entire gameworld as far as the story is concerned: Two castles and the lands in between. So if one of your companions is the heir to one of the lords and he dies, at least half the gameworld would go through some noticeable changes. Most probably both halves.

Honestly, the only real chance for most of the things Codexers want to be in a game would be on such a small scale. Could be interesting.

But maybe i am acustomed to other kind of stories that do not need of dragons and fairy princess to be interesting, and am able to see what could be interesting about a complex story backed with a deep web of relationships covering just a small area, and what the roleplaying posibilities of such design choices would be.

I presume you're talking about books. The nice thing about books is you only have to write the story once. To do what you're asking would require writing the story many times.

The story of FFVII was bad because it was targeted to teenagers who had not a freakin' idea of what is a good story. Every single Final Fantasy suffered from that: A story that tries to be complex and dark, but falls short because it must be told through means of codes and symbols a run-of-the-mill young adolescent can understand at face value. No story can be good if so told, as is shown by Anne Rice every single time she publish something.

That's a pretty elitest attitude, really.

Lets not hijack this thread. We are here to bash Dragon Age in response to the newer... errr... news, not to discuss RPG development principles, and i can live without a reputation of compulsive thread hijacking.

I'm not here to bash Dragon Age. I'm not so presumptious as to assume a game will be bad years before it's even released.

Maybe you could go through the AoD forums to get some ideas about how to keep a relationship in between a developer and could-be fans working.

He knows this is the Codex, and so there is no point. He's a good guy, if annoyingly secretive sometimes.

 

[Jed]

In essence, the Codex means nothing.

Volourn, why do you lie? Obviously the Codex means enough that BioWare employees take time out from INNOVASHUNing the cRPG genre to post pathetic retorts.

 

[Volourn]

BIOWARE = 200+ employees.

A handful come here. R00fles!

That's like saying because you or I post here somehow are particular companies give a damn about this place. for some reason, I doubt that is true.

So... I hope you enjoy your preorder of ME , JE PC, and DA!


R00fles!

Moron.

 

[Jed]

That's like saying because you or I post here somehow are particular companies give a damn about this place. for some reason, I doubt that is true.

Wha? You am Bizarro Yoda.

 

[whatusername]

I've found a great way to make Volourn's posts even more entertaining: read them in the voice of Napoleon Dynamite

I read them in the voice of a fat, naked, greasy man in his underwear with lots of popcorn. I really does work.

 

[Volourn]

I'm not fat nor do I wear underwear. You lose.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

I wonder if this game will come out before or after Duke Nukem Forever?

 

[OccupatedVoid]

...nor do I wear underwear...

Well, I wasn't expecting that. :shock:

 

[Sovard]

Great. Now we have the image of a nude dumbfuck wearing a moose antler cap bashing away at his keyboard while sneering smugly (though never audibly laughing) for every "LOL and R00fles!" he inserts.

Nah, just messing around Volourn. You tend to be entertaining and often have a point, even the posts where you're so lit up you hit the space bar too fast an dstar tto do t his.



Anyway- to the topic at hand. My problem is the lack of true progress. It almost feels like a mad lib where they replace the setting of the game and key elements (Ebon Hawk= "base camp") to suit their needs. The same fundamentals apply: dialogue, moral choices/consequences, the "epic" end (it may have a winding path of choices, but it meets at the same final boss regardless... I'd like an enemy to reflect how I actual spent my time in the game for once), mysterious hero, and of course the "base".

I just want a dynamic experience. I want the company I choose and the choices I make to have results felt within the world. I want a nemesis that I create for myself. I want the end to have choices, rather than a showdown.

We'll have to see if this game has those things, as I truly expect to enjoy myself- but ultimately be disappointed upon an analysis.

Is that good or bad? To like the game initially, then realize it's the same ol' shit? Am I destroying the experience by over-analyzing it?




P.S. To those who want me to stop complaining and give suggestions: I'd like to, but I have a wealth of information spawned from my own mind that is not open source. If I want to fix these things, I'd rather shoot for a designer/writer position than give away the good stuff.

 

[Voss]

Wow.

You guys take some of my responses out of context, add on several layers of assumptions of what DA is obviously going to be about and then start working yourselves up into an indignant lather based on that.

Normally I would be at least annoyed, but in this case it's just kind of funny. Talk about grasping at straws.

Ah. I'll stop extrapolating from your previous games then.
Obviously Bioware products are developed in a complete vacuum with whole new teams completely uninfluenced by anything done by Bioware before.

 

[Twinfalls]

I really don't know where the Codex gets off imputing a meaning to such completely ambiguous statements as this:

There is a "base camp" similar to the Ebon Hawk where NPC's who have joined you stay when they're not in your immediate party.

That could mean anything! Oh what wonders of hitherto-unheard of design must await us! DA will surely rock our foundations with CRAZY shit!

 

[Jed]

Voss and Twinfalls dual-wielded SMACKDOWN!!!