Dragon Age: Origins Forum Activity
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 887
Thomas Beekers: But a lot of it smells like the usual BioWare-mistakes. Too action-heavy with no way to avoid combat. Choices that seem meaningful (like the executing one) but have very, very few in-game consequences. The plot twist sounds like it is unavoidable, which is typically BioWare.
David Gaider: Well, there are ways to avoid combat -- when it's reasonable and interesting to do so. Seeing as combat is a big part of the game (as well as where you get much of your XP) it's intentional that there be a lot of it.
As for choices with in-game consequences, it varies. Some won't have any effects, some definitely will. You don't necessarily know that when making the choice.
As for the "plot twist", I'm not sure what's being referenced. We haven't advertised any twist, yet if there was such a thing it would no doubt be a result of the plot. No, it can't be avoided in a story-driven game -- that is "typically" Bioware, yes.
As for whether any of these things are mistakes, that's certainly up to whoever's commenting. These things aren't accidents, that's for sure. There are no doubt some who have already made up their minds about the game and all the power to them, I hope that at the end of the day they still give the game a chance -- but if not, so be it.
Dakkon77: Though I understand that somethings have to be set in stone to keep the game story-driven aswell.
Yes, I'm not saying that *nothing* is avoidable, but the major plot points that drive the story forward certainly are not... and in that particular origin, the circumstances of what happens can change depending on your choices but ultimately you are joining the Grey Wardens. That is the nature of the origin stories, but as I said this does not mean there are not also more open-ended parts to the game as well.
Thomas Beekers: ar be it for me to say it's a good idea to be able to avoid combat when it doesn't make sense (in a lot of ways it didn't for Fallout: it's a dog-eat-dog world, why should I be able to survive without fighting? But that's a design intent over setting consideration).
That said, for some like me the action focus can be a bit wearing, especially if one doesn't enjoy the action. I liked Jade Empire's combat, but absolute loathe Mass Effect's, which made the game a drag as there was no way around it).
David Gaider: I get that. I enjoy letting the player talk his way out of combat on occasion, as it allows their non-combat skills to shine, and sometimes it can be a really great moment. If all I'm doing is giving players a way to skip an interesting encounter for something less interesting, I don't see it as me helping them, really. I can't really say how interesting you might find DAO combat -- I imagine it's pretty subjective.
Thomas Beekers: The consequence focus sounds good, unless that means there's no way of knowing what kind of consequences a choice will have. That's just apt to annoy people
David Gaider: No doubt. Surprise consequences are what I call a "gotcha!" moment, which I think should be kept to a minimum. That said, not all consequences will actually come to fruition -- it'd be nice if we could, but often we leave such things as simply story moments. I guess some might look on that as a bit cheat-ish, but so long as that's not how every consequence plays out I'd like to think it's part of the experience.
Thomas Beekers: Also, when I say in-game consequences I do mean logical restructuring of the plot and game-world. As far as I know, that's never been something you guys do.
David Gaider: We do it a bit more in DAO, but that's probably because this game isn't quite as cinematic in its focus as some of our more recent games. Even so, you're correct in that we don't do a lot of plots that cause huge divergence. It's incredibly expensive, depending on how early it happens in the game. It would be nice, from a writing perspective, to do more but I understand why we don't.
Thomas Beekers: For clarity, this thread is about a comment made to this, the twist I'm referring to is the double-cross. If you want to call that a twist.
David Gaider: Right. I commented on that a couple of posts later. The origins all lead to the same end result, so while there is some variance the plot essentially remains the same (I wouldn't call it a twist, myself). That's by design, but the idea is that it does open up more later (think of BG2 when you got to Athkatla). The main focus of the origins is introducing you to the world from that particular origin's perspective, in that case showing you what dwarves are all about and setting the stage for your return to that region later on.
Thomas Beekers: Likewise, I think DA:O looks a bit too close to the usual BW formula for me to get excited about. As I said, that's a very personal comment and certainly not one made in any professional way, and one made and intended to be off-hand.
David Gaider: I didn't think they were off-hand, necessarily. I think DAO may be more up your alley than you think, but I can get why you might be leery.
Thomas Beekers: Also, honestly, the PR turns me off, but I've always been allergic to hype.
David Gaider: Funny thing about PR is that it's designed to be received by those who don't pay attention to it. Listen to too much and it has the opposite effect. I recently begged PR not to say "dark" any more.
