Dragon Age Central

Quote: Posted 01/25/07 20:03 (GMT) by Alandur-II-

Well, I don´t want raise your ire against me, but as far as I understand the above reads: there are no alignments in Dragon Age...but characters. Huh? But it is also stated that these characters have their own moral code. Isn´t this a contradicton into itself?

Is a soldier defending his home good or evil? What if his home is in a country that has invaded yours and committed atrocities? Now what's his alignment? Each character has a personal idea as to what is right and wrong. What side that character seems to be on will depend on your point of view. There's no single, final scale of who is right or wrong, though. You can fight and kill that soldier, and be "right" for defeating an enemy of your homeland, or you can do the same thing and be "wrong" for killing a man who was only defending his family; you could spare him and be considered a traitor, or spare him and be considered enlightened -- it's entirely a matter of perspective.

I would point out that the reason the story can be all about the Nameless One in Planescape:Torment is that you have no choice but to be the nameless one. Having a single, defined protaganist with a set history makes that a simpler task to do... and doing so obviously has some benefits to the game, as well as some very big drawbacks.

I think the origins provide the player with the needed roots in the story and the world without being overly defining. We tell you what your current circumstances are without detailing your history too much or telling you how you feel about your life or the people in it. You're the farmer's son, sure, but whether you hate the farm and yearn for adventure or love the farm and stumble into the adventure unwillingly is up to you.

My problem with the set-up in many RPG's such as, say, Icewind Dale or NWN, is that the player materializes seemingly out of thin air and has no connection to the world... and thus the story can't be about them. Some connections can be made which could apply to anyone (like the Bhaalspawn storyline in BG), but for me that kind of "chosen one" story -- as in the player is the only one who can solve the problem in question due to fate or some quirk of their existence -- doesn't have to be and shouldn't be the only alternative.

(and there... the 'B' is back, mystery over. I'm sure whoever posted the original message reconsidered and decided their comment wasn't contributing anything worthwhile. Although that doesn't usually seem to bother Stan... hmmmn.)

Quote: Posted 01/24/07 18:15 (GMT) by kormesios
You make decisions, which may be "Good", "Evil", both, or most often, neither. But even when they are actions requiring immense self-sacrificing and thus clearly Good (such as waking up early to give someone a ride to the airport) you don't get a pop up window telling you that you have "shifted your alignment" or something. You just know, because you have the power to understand your motivations for yourself.

That's half of it, exactly. The player already knows what he wants to do, and has likely spent some time mulling it over... or is just skipping through dialogue making random choices. But it's a little different than what we've done before with games and systems and worlds that have very defined good/evil actions.

If you have the option to "wake up early to take Joe to the airport" or "set Joe's alarm for three hours later so he'll miss his flight," those are pretty specific "good" and "evil" options. But if the choice is between "take Joe to the airport" and "give money to Joe so he can take a cab to the airport," the distinction becomes more of a character choice than which action is "good" or "evil."

Are you a bad person for not driving Joe to the airport yourself, or merely lazy? And what of the money you gave to Joe? Are you a good person for giving it to him, or did you steal it from his wallet earlier? The player knows his motivations so he doesn't need the game to point out the obvious to him.

Quote: There's really no point at all for a game telling you what action is good and evil, except to give you feedback about how that action is perceived. If you get the feedback in other ways (dialogue, say) then it can be happily discarded.

And that's the other half of it, exactly. Feedback can take many forms. It's not restricted to explicit text descriptions of whether you took a "good" or "evil" action and how many points it was worth.

Feedback can be something as simple as your Mom giving you a disapproving look when you don't drive Joe to the airport. Giving cab money to Joe isn't necessarily an "evil" action, but your Mom certainly disapproves of it. Or maybe Dad is proud of you for ensuring Joe gets to the airport on time, even if you can't or won't drive him yourself. It shows that you care for Joe, and that's what makes Dad happy.

And this might prompt a discussion between Mom and Dad that you overhear, a conversation you might not have heard had you simply driven Joe to the airport yourself.

See? Action-specific feedback, and action-specific dialogue paths, all without requiring a game judgement of the player's actions or morality. I think it'll work out pretty well.

Quote: Posted 01/24/07 17:06 (GMT) by Stanley Woo

Sheryl thinks it's good, but I think it's awesome! See? Conflict!

Oh, yeah. Totally. The only morality slider we have in DA is good/awesome. Is your PC good, or is your PC awesome? YOU MAKE THE CHOICE!

Just like Sheryl and I can't agree on whether Mary's secret plans for world domination by zombie kittens and sky wombats is a good thing or an awesome thing!

Sheryl thinks it's good, but I think it's awesome! See? Conflict!

Quote: Posted 01/24/07 15:00 (GMT) by The Coordinator
But a world without true good/evil axis...no clue how this could work.

Well, you sort of live in a world like that, where good and evil are defined by who you are. You may think that Action X is good, but someone else is going to think that it isn't. And there is no magical ruler that you can check to see if you've earned good/evil points.

For DA, we decided that we're going to create characters, not alignments. Each NPC has their own moral code. They may agree with each other or your PC on certain things, but not on others, just like in the real world.

Quote: Posted 01/23/07 22:35 (GMT) by ManAtArms3
I’ll disagree that you will not have Good/Neutral/Evil paths just by your own statement though. If you can take a more selfless or amoral route than that will be a good or evil path. One does not need a “niceness counter” to tell how good of a person they are. An RPG with no moral questions would be rather odd and dull (even if possible outside of a dungeon crawl); don’t you think?

I think the difference that is being described is this: if there was alignment as per D&D or the "niceness counter" as per KotOR we would have to ensure that we put in sufficient situations for the alignment/counter to change. Every plot and dialogue would have to have both an evil path and a good path as a point of gameplay, whether such paths were logical or appropriate or not.

By taking the gameplay element out of it, we can do as you say. We can include issues of morality as a point of roleplaying, instead, and leave matters of interpretation up to the player and the NPC's in the world. The actions we present in any given plot are those we feel are appropriate, as in the struggle between doing what is right and what is necessary. For me, that's far more interesting.

Quote: Posted 01/23/07 19:48 (GMT) by The Coordinator

but for topics: the DnD alignment roster is there to provide a guideline for DMs and players to use. you need these guidelines, or how else you wanna play pnp alignment if deeds are not defined by such??? you get teh guidelines and then you create the behavior/dialogue/moral consequences. what´s wrong with that?

Well, we have actions, and we have consequences. Your deeds are defined entirely by the actions you take and their results. You can still take different paths through quests, for instance, and maybe go a more self-serving route or a more selfless route, or side with one group over another but there's no Good/Neutral/Evil paths in dialogue or plots.

Quote: Posted 01/22/07 11:02 (GMT) by Autumn Bard

Obviously it has to be done mathematically, so a cross-referenced multiple category relationship scale would seem to be best, that way many aspects of what makes role-playing interesting would be preserved. What i mean is it tallies quest choices, conversation choices, adhering to alignment, gift-giving, letting the NPC do a task in the PC's stead, agreeing to go on a side quest for the NPC, anything else they come up with, and scale it to fit what the specific NPC finds more important with each category counting for something.

Please keep in mind that Dragon Age does not use alignment, so "adhering to alignment" can't factor into the NPC relationship. But otherwise, yes, those are all things that the game tracks with regard to your party members. And they can be greatly upset by the things you do, sufficiently that they'll leave the party. They won't just be okay with anything you decide.

Quote: Posted 01/19/07 23:02 (GMT) by Tsuga C
Would the Quivering Palm of the D&D monk be a non-DA parallel to the magical powers of certain advanced fighting classes?

Sure. While we don't have anything specifically like that, it would be an example of a specialized sort of magical training that doesn't necessarily require that one also be able to cast spells.

I am not saying that Dragon Age is Male balanced but why would you think it might be?

What has our previous games done that would make you think that DA might be more Male balanced?

thx

Quote: Posted 01/10/07 17:56 (GMT) by Sylvius the Mad
I am not saying that we need PC death in Dragon Age. I am not saying that I think the death mechanic they're using in Dragon Age will be bad. I am saying that they appear to have selected this death mechanic (or rejected permadeath) based on unsound reasoning.

And what, exactly, is our reasoning?

I have said several times that we did not elect for no permadeath because we thought that permadeath would make the game too difficult. We are also not electing for no permadeath because there are party members we need for the story -- currently there is only one.

I have also said that you can make a game with permadeath just fine, so long as the rest of the game accomodates that decision.

We have the injury system as it is because of what we decided was more important regarding the setting, the story and the gameplay. This is the way we feel the game works best.

So I'd be interested to know what our apparent reasoning is that you object to, unless you simply don't believe me. Which, as I've said these things directly to you already, must be the case.

And I can't imagine a computer game that allows for any and all character creation possibilities, even if they don't fit the setting or story.

When I play Tomb Raider, I can't play as Frederico Flintstoni, world famous race car driver and playboy.

When I play Prince of Persia, I can't play Rick Hunter, RDF Veritech Pilot.

When I play Mass Effect, I won't be able to play as Hunter S. Thompson.

When I play Dragon Age, I will have only as much background and character options as the game allows, which, despite the different backgrounds given to the player, can still be quite a lot.

Quote: Posted 01/10/07 00:17 (GMT) by xzwart
But why cant you make some content for more hardcore players? It can be extremaly difficult side quests, hidden masohist dungeons, extremaly difficult bosses.
Or maybe players could switch such events(for example by using extremaly stupid conversation options, like: No I will not leave your castle mr Emperor, I will slay you and your 1666 guards instead...)

Who's to say we can't or won't? It's all a matter of using our resources as effectively as possible. Usually, though, this means creating areas and plots that the greatest number of people will experience. Dragon Age is already doing a lot of things differently than we've seen in our previous games, so that may mean that we'll see plenty more differences as the project progresses.

Quote: Melirinda said:
Basically, I want any battale winnable w/o the need to reload and spend three hours searching internet trying to find out what do you need to do to kill the foe. That's, of course, if the game ends once you died.

Combats requiring obscure items or bosses that have difficult to determine weak spots are probably poorly designed and should have been re-done. I really dislike games or combats that put all sorts of immunities on the big bad, because it makes all the bonuses and feats and skills that I've put into my character completely useless.

I prefer bosses that, say, have lots of hit points but aren't necessarily difficult to hit; or an interactive environment that can be used to help defeat the boss; or a boss that takes more damage from a certain element type; or a boss that may be easy to beat but is always moving or regularly and predictably summons minions to distract you; or a boss that requires a certain advanced move to damage.

Using the rules and mechanics already in place is far better than applying arbitrary restrictions. For some really neat boss fights, check out The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess or Shadow of the Colossus.

It's true that we game designers need to provide a motivation for the characters that's reasonable. But, as has been mentioned (sort of), the player also needs to meet us half-way. We can't possibly provide motivations for all types of characters -- indeed, RPG's that are specifically designed to accomodate all character types (such as Oblivion) also necessarily provide no motivation at all. Lack of contradiction is not really better than providing motivation in my book, but some people seem to feel differently.

Even so, at some level you either buy into the concept or you simply never well. We can (and should) make that buy in easier, but there must also be some willingness to play by our rules or what's the point?