Dragon Age Forum News (Feb. 18, 05)

chevalier · Jan 3, 2018

Remove all ads!
Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, collected by NWVault. Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end.

David Gaider, Designer

Dev response: Nonviolent solutions to hostile actions?

back on topic: is it possible that most major (UNNECCESSARY) conflicts can be avoided by diplomatic intervention/machinations?
Most conflicts? No. Sometimes you might be able to, but I imagine that's not what you're talking about.

More:
there are people who played peacefully pilgrims in morrowind and they rarely had to fight.
How nice for Morrowind. Sounds exciting.

Quote: if epic is only big and lots of fighting then you surely must redefine that word.
It isn't "only" anything. But we're talking about being able to avoid most if not all fighting, here. To me, that's not very epic.

Quote: sometimes its fun to play a diplomat and his adventure can be as epic as the bfg casting mage.
I think it would be fun to play a diplomat if the story catered to making that a meaningful path. Not all stories are going to allow that as a possibility.

More:
I don't think all this slaying is very heroic. It's fine for the villains, but if I wanted to play a good party my hero would have to say something like: 'Let tis be an important lesson to you, evil goblin. Don't do it again.'
Oh, I don't know about that. Good hardly equates with stupid any more than evil equates with violent.

More:
Let me put it this way: on at least a 1/3 basis, can most conflicts be avoided? (i.e.: for every three conflicts, can one be avoided?)
I have no idea. I doubt it. Generally when setting up an encounter or a plot, I put in what paths seem appropriate to the story and the situation. I wouldn't put in a "non-violent" solution just to have it in there... I would put it in if there was a way to do so that was as fun as the other paths. It's not a design goal in and of itself.

Does this mean that Dragon Age is some mindless hack-and-slash game? No, but the story centers on epic events and warfare. Look at the story in Lord of the Rings, for example, and ask yourself if 1/3 of the conflicts therein could or should have been avoided.

More:
And I'm not sure how important having nice little touches like these would be. Would anyone bother to notice them? Unless you really have a eagle eye for these things, I don't think so.

Of course, having the NPCs at least do something logical like entering their houses after sunset and staying there would be good. It's kind of funny to see, like, 20 random people in the town square at midnight.
That's pretty much how it's going to be. We're not interested in creating a world simulation, but the idea is to have the world seem alive and the NPC's that you encounter be engaged in activities that make them feel like they're actually alive... or to pass surface inspection, anyhow. If you intend to follow old ladies around to see what time they do their laundry and whether or not her family has dinner together... well, that not so much, but it's really beside the point.

More:
since they have stated that there will not be any day/night cycle, the chance that there is any type of work/live cycle is more or less zero.
See, this is why we hesitate to mention things that haven't been decided yet. No, we have not stated that there will be no day/night cycle. That is an assumption that is being made based on a discussion about the potential that there might not be a day/night cycle, nothing more.

In other words, geez, don't listen to Darcy. What are you people thinking?

Quote: 1) How much of the world of DA is defined. is there "unknown" regions that you can freelly put your module in and claim that they still is is in the DA realm. or is the whole planet/plane fully described. i mean can i put a continent west of the known DA world? (assuming there is a ocean in that direction)
There are plenty of areas which are not detailed at this point. Insofar as where you place your own stories, I imagine that would be anywhere you like.

Quote: 2) will there be any type of combined documentation of the DA world available. or do you need to copy everything out of the game.
Hard to say. I guess it depends on what marketing decides and what demand there is after release.

Quote: 3)how easy will it be to expand/modify the OC?
That has yet to be decided.

Let's talk about life in DA . . .

So, what is life going to be like in DA? What settings are you using from real life, if any?
It wouldn't be a fantasy setting if we were using real-life settings, would it? Though I suppose some places are based on other settings, generally a mish-mash of various inspirations for any given place. What setting isn't, though?

Quote: Are we going to have another freedom vs. tyranny thing; where totalitarian lords exercise strict laws over helpless peasants and commoners?
Another freedom vs. tyranny thing? What was the previous thing? Are you talking about feudalism?

The reason you tend to see feudalism as the predominant social structure in fantasy is because the time period is generally associated with the medieval. One needn't be forced to have feudalistic societies, I suppose, but having weird crap just for the sake of it being different doesn't necessarily make it good.

Quote: Or will an elite group of peasants control the ruling faction for nefarious purposes?
Hmmm. Why would peasants control the ruling faction? Peasants are stupid and poor. That is why they are peasants. If these peasants are nefarious and powerful, would they still be peasants? Seems to me they would be the ruling class.

Or Republicans.

Quote: Or something else entirely? This is not a question of storyline, characters, romances, or plot. This is a question of details about how the rest of the world gets along with daily life besides the PC/party/adventurers?
Well, that depends on where you are. Places differ, though I'd say for the most part things are pretty recognizably feudalistic.

More:
the screenshots gave me the impression that "Life" in the Dragon Age setting seems to be a bit more Tribal than in most "generic" fantasy settings but with interesting architecture that looks like it was built by more civilised people than the two characters strolling around enjoying the atmosphere.
The style of the setting in those shots are not representative of what the setting will be like in the final release. Those screenshots were intended to show off the DA engine... the world was not yet designed at that point.

Races of Dragon age
There will be less races, not more.

The trade-off is that being that race will have an actual effect throughout the game. If you are an elf and you meet other elves, they treat you differently... perhaps have entirely different dialogue or plots.

Since all dialogue is recorded, it isn't enough to just insert a <RACE> token into a line anymore.

New race descended from dragons?

I'm partial to the Warcraft dragons. Old, wise , not cocerned with the plights of the "lesser races". And they seem to have a very coherent society of their own, with 5 dragonflights and only one of them is evil(black). And each of the dragonflights has its own leader with an interesting personality of it's own. I would like for the DA dragons to be something like this.
You mean pretty much like D&D dragons? No, that they definitely won't be.

Day/Night Cycle Part 2

Otherwise there's no need for infravision on some races if it's going to be day all the time.
Two things to address here:

1) Just because there might be no transition does not mean it would be day all the time. We would put each area in whatever time period served the events going on there... which is exactly what you described. Would you rather have that tense ambush occur at night, heightening the atmosphere, or on a bright and cheery afternoon simply because that's what the clock said?

2) Infravision, what? Who says anyone can see in the dark, period? That happens to be one of those rules that doesn't work well outside of tabletop and must therefore be happily excluded.

Let there be food and water, clothes and weather!

Realism is the key! I don't mind if Bioware takes an extra year developing the game or if it will cost the dubble. If they put all in the game that they had in the BG series and NWN plus the need for food, water and clothes for different weather it whould be a fantastic game. Other game companies whould fall flat!
I love sarcasm. I hope this was sarcasm.

Anyhow, I'm sure there are games where simulation of real life is a primary goal. Dragon Age will not be that. What we're going for is verisimilitude. That and a kick-*** story.

More:
I not talking about making it look like SIMS, I just had a few suggestions that whould give depth to adventuring.
Those things would give depth, huh?

So you weren't being sarcastic. That's too bad.

Question for Bioware

1. Does the game has high replayability? Will it be the same if i play the game for the 2nd or 3rd time? If i play with the same character after i first won the game in my 2nd game, will it be different?
I expect it will be very much replayable, though that depends on what your expectations are for "different". You might have a different experience based on your class, race and background choice... but would you be expecting an entirely different story altogether? If so, then no... but, then, not many games would be.

Quote: 2. It's already 2005.. and i have not heard anything about Dragon Age. When will more info be revealed please?
Later.

Quote: 3. Will combat/battles be much more interesting? Are there more complexity options for hardcore rpg gamers? Or will it just be simple yet boring point, click and just watch battles?
I love loaded questions like this.

fan: "Will your game suck or actually be good?"
developer: "Ummm... it'll be good?"

Of course we'll try to make battles more interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by "complexity options", but if you're referring to optional turn-based combat, that would be no.

Quote: 4. Can i just have no party member and still win the game?
Like BG2, the game will be designed to require a party. We're considering allowing you to go solo, similarly, if that's what you really must do.

Quote: 5. How far is the development of DA? What has been finalized? At what stage is DA currently emphasizing on?
Those are pretty general questions. In order:

- we're still working on it.
- not much.
- what stage are we emphasizing on? I'm not sure what that means. We're still in the designing and creation phase, I suppose.

Day/Night Cycle Part 2

I think some events should be tied to the clock, actually. You might get ambushed by undead for example if you happend to stroll by a certain place at night, like someone mensioned here
Or how about you get ambushed at undead when you stroll past that point because the story calls for it? Otherwise it's just a random encounter, which we can put anywhere and at any time.

Quote: and some minor subquest you should not stumble over if you come at the wrong time of day.
Why? Why should I write a whole quest that someone could miss just by chance? Certainly not everything need be seem by everyone, but there's only so much work you can do on such things. I would rather have class-specific or race-specific quests rather than time-specific quests.

Quote: About infravision, or darkvision, whatever... Do you mean you're not going to have that ability at all in DA?
Why would we? The view is not first-person, and you're likely to have a party from all races anyhow. That's something from D&D that really should just stay there.

More: Bah. Now I need to go shout at Derek, too.

Producers. Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em.

At any rate... no, it has not been confirmed that there is no day/night cycle. It is still very much an issue.

Darcy Pajak, Assistant Producer

Define "Adult" Material - attempt #2
Adult content means that most people under the age of 13 will not understand the hard choices and tricky situations we put the player into. Indeed, on their 13th birthday they suddenly understand all the things about our game they didn’t quit understand just the day before.

They will now have to realize that they have to take responsibility to turn up to class. Pay the phone bill once in a while. Plan a budget, make their own appointments to get their teeth cleaned and vote.

Or did I just give away the story?

Derek French, Technical Producer

Day/Night Cycle Part 2

2) Infravision, what? Who says anyone can see in the dark, period? That happens to be one of those rules that doesn't work well outside of tabletop and must therefore be happily excluded.
And there was much rejoicing.

Infravision, Ultravision, Cablevision -- blech!

Alodar
Damn, I missed a meeting. When was Cablevision cut?

More:
So it's a no to day/night cycles then?
Correct.

Quote: Though you did say it wasn't going to remain day for the duration of the game. Did I understand that post correctly?
Correct.

More: Part of the problem, is that upon re-reading this thread, I have seen people use the phrase "day/night cycle" and I have seen 3 different definitions of it.

Brenon Holmes, Programmer

Constant HP system proposal

In fact, the D&D-style systems have some of the same problems you mentioned. In a constantly -rising HP system like NWN or KOTOR, critical hits are insta-kills for low-level characters, and usually no more than speed bumps for high-level chars.

That's not necessarily a problem, of course, higher level characters should be harder to kill.

This can be done in a constant HP system: low-level chars might get hit more often for more damage than high-level chars. That is, maybe that big stone giant would hit a low-level fighter for 150 hp (killing him outright, and then some) but the same hit against a high-level fighter might cause only 10 hp damage.

Numerically speaking, there's very little difference between hitting a high-level (constant-hp) 100-hp character for 10 damage and hitting a high level (rising-hp) 4000-hp character for 400 damage- they've both lost 10% of their hit points... so where's the problem?
Maybe I should clarify what I meant, because there's a lot of ideas floating about in this thread. There's nothing wrong with a constant increase of health... there is however a problem with constant health. I don't think I made that distinction very clear... (sorry!)

A sword should be equally lethal to everyone, that's realistic. It's also realistic that when you square off against a rat in your very first battle, there's a very good chance that it could kill you. Either through blind luck, or maybe it's a mutant... whatever.

If/when he hits you, it's quite likely it will be serious or fatal. That's not really that fun. Think of NWN, running around with your 4hp Wizard... vulnerable to a stray breeze... Could you imagine playing the entire game with that kind of health?

Some might say yes (masochists!), but I think on the whole most people would agree that it's pretty dumb that a thrown pebble (!) could kill you in one shot. It's not fun and definetly not conducive to the overall gameplay experience. (Yes, the above is an extreme example)

Reality sucks sometimes.

All I'm saying is that in a realtime environment, constant health is probably a no-go.

There's also nothing preventing us from having an interesting critical system where critical hits are more than just ubah damage (as I believe was mentioned several times in this thread).

But, one thing to keep in mind is that the more complicated the result the more difficult it *may* be to display the result to the end user in a meaningful manner.

I'm told (though, I find it unfathomable) that some people actually never paid attention to the combat feedback window in other games!

There's plenty of ways this could be implemented- my favorite idea is of making the combat less abstract- consider this: in NWN, I know one fighter is better than another because he has higher attack boneuses, more HP, etc. What do those nimbers mean? He can swing a sword "better", whatever that might mean? And how much difference is there, really, between a +28 to attack and a +29?

<snip>
...
</snip>

What I'm thinking is that as characters gain levels, they gain more tactical options rather than just higher numbers. So while that low-level fighter is going to get splattered by the stone giant (because he has only basic training), a high-level fighter may have skills like Defensive Fighting (to avoid most blows), Reduce Damage (the ability to "roll" with the blows that do hit, or partially deflect them, or whatever, so they do less damage), and the like. Critical hits (assuming they even exist in the system) need not be that bad for the high-level char, especially if he's gotten some nice magical equipment.
I can't really talk much about the abilities of the various classes and we probably won't have a lot hammered out for quite some time. But... if you're interested in contributing, you folks could start some threads on the types of abilities you'd like to see the different class types having...

I can say though, that we want to provide tactical options. It should be more than simply clicking on a target and going to get a cup of coffee.

More:
Brenon: you dont get the idea behind the system. your hp is constant, yes but you make up for it with damage reduction through various means, block etc.. you "get hp" by other means. its just other semantics.

edit: you could also not name it hp. name it "while not zero->i live". so the naggers stop naging about that.
If the system is set up so that the whittling process I've described does not occur (ie: most exchanges are parries, blocks or dodges) how do you tell who's winning a fight?

If the system is set up to trivialize damage through damage reduction, how is that actually any different from a system of scaling hit-points and damage?

Log in or Sign up

Dragon Age Forum News (Feb. 18, 05)

chevalier Knight of Everfull Chalice ★ SPS Account Holder Veteran