BioWare's made no secret of the fact that they keep a running tab of player metrics, and Dragon Age: Origins was no different.
They learned a few neat tidbits -- "more people played warriors than rogues or mages" explains lead designer Mike Laidlaw -- but they also learned something that changed their approach to Dragon Age II.
"We saw a lot of people disengaging at hour one, hour two. Not pursuing it, right?" explains Laidlaw. The Dragon Age team might have chalked some of those lost players up to rentals, but the statistics didn't back it up: a significant number of people simply stopped playing Dragon Age: Origins after a few hours.
"I think what it really spoke to is something RPGs have been wrestling with for a long time: that first impression," says Laidlaw.
So they fixed it.
"You get to an RPG and fire it up, and ... it hits you in the face with a thousand stats. Those stats are very cool, but you may not be mentally or emotionally prepared to deal with them as your first thing to do in the game," he says.
To keep people from checking out early, Laidlaw's team totally reinvigorated Dragon Age II's intro. The result is so seamless and subtle that players might not even realize they're being taught to play the game. Sure, there are some button prompts here or there, but the way Dragon Age II introduces its combat and narrative are remarkably elegant.
The game opens with with a cinematic. Varric, a dwarf, is being interrogated by Cassandra, a templar, the mage-police of Dragon Age. She is inquiring (rather rudely) after the whereabouts and identity of "the Champion." Varric grudgingly acquiesces and begins an account of the life of Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall.
Varric's retelling of Hawke's rise to power is the overall narrative structure, and his perspective is crucial in this introductory phase. "Part of the glorious advantage of the frame narrative is [that] Varric kind of lies about you. We establish how people perceive the Champion. This figure is of some import to the world." Since most people believe the Champion to be incredibly powerful, she is, at least for a while.
Hawke's story begins as she and her family try to escape the destruction of Lothering by the Darkspawn horde. As the flee their burning home, they become surrounded by Darkspawn: the game gives a few quick prompts about how to use the basic skills of the class the player has chosen and the slaughter begins. The enemies are plentiful, Hawke cannot die, and the colorful and vibrant art give players a visual excuse to experiment liberally.
After a short spurt of brutality, the game introduces slightly more powerful and slightly more complex abilities, and the violence begins anew. This process repeats itself a few more times before, without realizing it, Hawke has become impossibly powerful. This gives players a chance to learn the ins and outs of combat -- and with Hawke's infinite health and gentle guidance from the game, players can learn at their own pace. Thankfully, there's an abundance of willing Darkspawn.
When Hawke rips an ogre apart with her bare hands and summons a dragon, Cassandra, quite literally, calls bullshit.
"We give the player a chance to just bust out for a minute. Here you go ... go nuts," explains Laidlaw. He's clearly excited by the prospect and pantomines Hawke as a mage: "Cone of Cold, Fireball, rain fire down on your foes. That's cool, that's the mage experience in terms of combat."
This perception of the Champion is so pervasive that most people aren't even sure what she looks like -- players won't customize their Hawke's appearance until after the intro, when Varric cuts out the mythologizing and sticks to the facts. No need to mess with dozens of facial sliders until players have already had fun with the game.
At this point, Varric begins his story in earnest. Assuming you're now comfortable with basic combat, Dragon Age II dials back the theatrics but starts introducing complexity -- Hawke has access to her basic starting abilities, but she and her companions start accruing experience points, gold, and inventory.
"You don't need to go to the tactics screen first, you don't need to pick how much dex you have first. It's part of the organic learning process," says Laidlaw. Tactics and statistics -- so the logic goes -- only make sense after a player has an in-game analogue for them.
It's only after you've leveled up once that you start gaining new abilities and distributing stats, which dovetails nicely with Dragon Age II's new user interface -- each stat comes with a description of the properties it governs and damage is automatically calculated based on stat distribution and equipment, making it easy for users to see exactly how their choices affect the game.
"So I think what that'll do is help us and help players keep engaged a little smoother without us having to say, 'Oh well, let's get rid of stats!'" Laidlaw continues. "We didn't want to do that; we wanted to present them in a better way."
BioWare's stat-tracking tools presented them with a problem, but Dragon Age II's cohesion of user interface, narrative structure, and tutorial solved it.
Contest:
4:00 PM on 02.23.2011
| 
The Tactics screen was mind boggling. maybe it's cause I played it on a console and not the PC.
The game itself I thought was great but I couldn't deal with trying to figure out the tactics/inventory menu. Oh and will bioware please fix their map system. Good lord it's archaic.
The above really shows how much they streamlined the game (much like Mass Effect 2). I'm sure many people will complain about that. However, Mass Effect 2, I was more fine with, because it was mostly a shooter before it was an RPG. Dragon Age kind of sort of had it's roots in the Baldur's Gate series. Also, the "super charged hero for the intro" thing isn't new, Laidlaw! See Prototype, or a lot of other action titles.
Long story short, I'll be interested to see how much role playing I'll be doing in the sequel, and how much will be played for me. One thing I didn't like about the demo in particular was that they told you "you were being mean/nice/impartial" while you were selecting your choices. I prefer the Dragon Age/Witcher method of "we're not going to tell you what your proclivities are, because the entire world around you is subjective" - it was a true rarity in gaming.
-Cinematic opening with dark room. Ooooh, all Hollywood now. "EA presents" a "Bioware production". Boooooring.
-Dramatically over the top stabbing of a book. Boring. -.-
-Cryptic dialogue for "drama". Snore....
-Start playing. Oh, this feels pretty...oh my god. You can't be serious. That can't be a hurlock. Please don't tell me that's the design you're going with. Please tell me this is a joke on the side of your art department! If not then they should all be fucking fired.
Alright rogue combat...why can't I access my inventory...tactics menu is busted...very consolised interface although not tooo big of a deal...talents recharge WAY too fast...far too easy to kill enemies...graphics are terrible (on medium)...lothering's environment seems kind of weird, looks like one of mass effect's desert planets...magic seems kind of meh....attacks have no weight to them...attacks are FAR too quick and just look fucking stupid at the speed they're going....attacks do too much damage...I wanted more damage in the first game to make the combat more engaging but this is going way too far...tough enemies take too long to die and there's no threat because they don't do much damage (compare DA2 first ogre battle to original ogre battle).
-"Okay I'll tell you the real story" ffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu whattttttttttttttt
-"Keep running" *party turns and slaughters attackers". Why were you running in the first place?!?!?!
-Improved looting system...yay I can finally use archery...what the fuck is up with the gore?!?!...attacked from behind when I couldn't see the enemies, not that it mattered since they do so little damage...
Side note: Darkspawn were fucking fierce in DA:O. They weren't like little rats that overwhelm you, they were an almost unstoppable force that had a frightening presence. The new hurlocks look like REJECTS from the first DA, same for the ogres.
..."badass" Hawke stare at Templar for no reason other than to be MANLY...I hate this clumsy wheel....skills on skill bar are way too small...what's with the quick heal button and quick...stamina button? Stamina is meant to be a resource that is carefully controlled during combat, you can't just drink a potion, although it doesn't change much since you have more stamina than you possibly know what to do with...it would help to be able to change the difficulty...wait....flemeth decides to help these guys because...they took down an ogre? And she's wearing armour? She has horns??! She wants something delivered to the Dalish?! Why?!!? She decides to turn into a dragon now?!?! Hey, the point of Flemeth was that she was a witch in hiding who used specific people to her own ends ocassionally, but mostly stayed in hiding, gathering power constantly. However, she always seems like an old lady and the dragon is a huge WTF moment that makes you aware of her power at the MIDDLE-END of the first game, not the beginning! It's like episode 3 when they have the emperor's throne on Grievous' ship. It just doesn't make any god damn sense. Actually, that's a nice comparison if I do say so myself, particularily because Flemeth's real strength lies in manipulation, not sheer power.
-Next cutscenes are a GIANT WTF that I couldn't follow. I then just turned it off.
Conclusion: Alright I guess, but a step backward and the story seems unecessary and retarded. Combat has a nice feel but needs FAR more powerful enemies to make it effective, not just swarming the player with enemies. However, the city seemed to have better art direction than the first game, although less realistic.
Also, Hawke, although he has better voice acting than Shepard, shares Shepard's "Thornton disease". What this means is that every single line of dialogue makes him sound like a douche.
Damn, I should've made a video on youtube with the commentary. XD
I'll wait for a steam sale.
Ring, Ring... Ring, Ri-
Cassandra: Hello, is this Bullshit?
Bullshit: Oh why yes it is, to whom am I speaking?
C: The name's Cassandra and and Varric said the warden ripped an ogre apart bare handed, that midget's lying isn't he?
BS: Why yes Cassandra! Yes, I believe the little man is trying to pull a fast one on ya!
The game looks cool too.
"we're not going to tell you what your proclivities are, because the entire world around you is subjective"
To me, since the idea is to play the Warden as you see fit, BioWare needed to be clearer about his/her dialog choices. It really kills the illusion if you pick a response you think is funny, but the Warden delivers it like an asshole. Your party still reacts to it (subjective), but if you're *truly* roleplaying as the Warden, you need to know what's up, right? Otherwise, the roleplaying blows up in your face.
But I might be misunderstanding you.
Seriously, this is the exact publisher-reviewer bullshit which makes a mockery of games journalism, even your articles' comments have been somewhat skeptical, yet your coverage has been somewhat ... uncritical?
Yea, Leray, wtf, man, how dare you post a positive preview piece?
Anywho, sounds interesting - though I could see it backfiring if you give the player free reign then take that power from them. Either way I'll be picking this up.
I have a pretty beefy new PC, so I guess maybe others' are having legitimate graphics issues. My experience with the graphics, though, was purely positive. I it's certainly better than the first game (which I also didn't have many problems with, however). Regardless, the actual art style just seemed fantastic, and I definitely dug on the stylistic changes they made. It felt more.. interesting and unique.
Honestly, I can't say I got any real negative vibe from the demo. That still doesn't mean the game will be amazing, as the most important stuff has yet to be shown (the quality of the story, how the combat works in the heart of the game itself, how progression works, etc. etc.). Regardless, I honestly can't wait.
And, yeah, I do think the game is awesome. I played about five hours of it and really enjoyed it, and I'm sorry (?) if that comes through in the article(s). Is there something more specific that bothers you?
I'm not trying to blow you off here, but I really don't understand what the issue is -- I just profiled some dudes I talk to who make games.
It's not an awful idea, but Bioware is just so shamelessly self-promotional all the time. And whether or not they solved it is yet to be seen, since they will probably do the same stat-tracking and see if it made any difference.
It reminds me of the promotions for Mass Effect 2, where they told everyone the opening before they even got the game, and told everyone how revolutionary it was. And then explained how you can die in the ending, also ruining the surprise there. And showed Garrus coming back, ruining that surprise.
As far as the demo goes, it looks pretty ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I'll get the ultimate edition because I enjoy a bloody hack and slash as much as the next guy. But it just always bothers me when Bioware acts like their game is the best shit ever made and talks shit on other developers, because it just invites people to point out some of their obvious flaws - instead of just playing the game.
We're you pressing the LT/L2 buttons? That gives the pause-play and lets you switch between characters and give commands from simple move/attack to their special abilities. Or I think it's those triggers that does it.
Not trying to come off strong as being rude, but why is it that when I watch someone play Dragon Age on the PC they say that playing the console version is difficult? I see no problem from my end. Playing DA:O on the 360 was easy enough for me and I used the pause-play constantly. Sometimes just to pause the game and look around to enjoy the view...of a bloodbath. Same thing with DA2 demo on PS3.
Anyway, judging from the demo, DAII is a huge improvement over DAO in most areas, though its focus on the slightly more interesting action was not inspiring, excess of boring action in DAO was one of the reasons the game was far worse than it could be
But the story is what i'm interested most, right now. And the "tale about you" concept is intriguing.
P.S. BioWare, you just HAD to redesign Isabella into Liara, didn't you?
However, it's not all roses and rainbows. The removal of the isometric perspective makes it much harder to target enemies with your ranged fighters since you are trying to click on a distant object at a low angle. If a bunch of enemies are clustered and you want to single one out, forget about it. I'm desperately hoping some generous modder creates a camera hack to get up a little higher.
The story pacing seemed a little rushed as well, but I'm willing to forgive this since it's a demo. I have a strong feeling two parts of the game that are hours apart were mashed together. From a gameplay perspective, it gives you a good perspective on what more complex fights are going to be like later in the game, but it cannibalizes the story in the process.
I agree with Magnalon about the dialogue wheel (and have been saying this since they announced it). I think you both laid out the two sides of the argument pretty well. On the one hand, you don't want somebody to pick a dialogue option that has a completely different intent than anticipated, but on the other hand you don't want the conversation system (a mainstay of most RPG's) to be so simplistic that you don't feel like you're having to consider your choices carefully. Something I enjoyed about Dragon Age (and The Witcher) was being able to search for the dialogue choice that best characterized how I felt about what was just said by an NPC. It was almost a game unto itself. Mass Effect and, now, Dragon Age 2 take all of the thought out of it. Don't get me wrong, I loved Mass Effect 2; however, I generally like playing "a good guy". By indicating which option is "good", I am no longer in control of my own definition of "goodness" and I don't really have to bother even thinking about the other options. Bottom line: I enjoy using my brain while selecting dialogue. By indicating intent, you reduce the thinking to: "Do I want to be nice or do I want to be an ass".
Also, on an unrelated note, did anybody else find the Archer class to be WAY more powerful than the others?
The only game where the morality system made sense was KOTOR. In that game it actually did feel like there was a reason to select the light side option, or the dark side option, because the entire existence of a Jedi is about how well you can stick to a rigid moral code. And those choices have always had a concrete effect on your other abilities, since it's all connected through the force. In every other game they've made with a morality system, it's been tacked on and uninspired.
^This
I don't know where this is all coming from. It plays pretty much like the first one, but it's faster paced, has a different style and is TRYING to improve. Can you fault them for that? I'm just curious, would you people complain this much if it stayed pretty much EXACTLY the same?
Are you going to do Destructoid's review?
they need at least 2 more years to make a good game and a lot of improvements.
I loved DAO and I want something new and better with more. DA2 is more of the same with less...
I found the design of the Intro area to be pretty boring. Endless stretches of dirt and clay with no vegetation (and an occasional hill) do not an engaging environment make. Kirkwall was a bit better but after all that talk about making the world more visually interesting, I better see some colors other than white and brown in the finished product. On a positive note, I loved most of the character designs. They seemed very individualized and were all pretty memorable (especially Varric for breaking away from the gruff, bearded design that fantasy seems married to).
As far as the demo goes -- do I think there's nothing wrong with it? Dunno: I haven't played the demo that's available now, but I played a few hours of an earlier build.
Based on that early build, though, there are some things I didn't like. The textures are still assy, the animation is kind of stiff, and, honestly, the intro isn't as smooth as I think Laidlaw wishes it were.
But, mechanically? No, I really think it's a good game, with a solid RPG foundation. I really believe that, and I am really excited about, and I'm not the only one on staff.
But, in my opinion, that isn't my job in a piece like this -- I can save that stuff for a review, where my responsibility is to you guys. In articles like this, though, I think it's more important that I step back and let Laidlaw say his thing. He's very obviously passionate about making good RPGs, and I think it's interesting to let people interested in his work get a glimpse into how it got made. It's not that I'm trying to cover up DAII's faults -- it just wasn't my goal in an article like this.
Now, does coverage like this serve BioWare PR in a positive way? Yeah, of course. You get an interesting guy like Laidlaw in front of a voice recorder, and people are going to write down what he says because he's really passionate about games and it's interesting to write about. As for my relationship with BioWare PR? I wouldn't know, I haven't heard a peep out of them since I wrote my first preview several months ago.
But I also think that readers are served by articles like this. It's exciting and it's a great look into how these games get made. I just tried to write the best, most engaging thing I could.
I agree. Fortunately, Dragon Age has never had morality system. There is a sliding scale but it relates to team member loyalty/affection. Your choices don't really change you but they do change events in the game and how your individual party members view you, which I think is fine.
Seriously, everything in this game looks freaking boring.
I can deal with the other graphical shortcomings like the shitty textures, stiff animations and whatever the fuck else. I dont give a damn about that stuff, but the game has some of the most boring looking characters, creatures and environments ive ever seen in a videogame.
Shame, really.
They're a step up from the last game at least
That's true. Symphony of the Night, God of War, probably several other examples.
I'll always play rougue in a game like this! I have to be able to unlock doors and disarm traps! Also 2 daggers and a bow and arrow!
Personally I thought the demo was awesome. I like that Hawke is a character with personality; it always bugs me in games where the character I'm playing as makes choices and the text claims they're talking a lot but he/she never actually says anything. Even if the personality is forced onto him/her by me through dialogue choices, it just feels more right. I hated that about Origins.
I like the art style (@Malfegor - I can respect that it might not be to everyone's tastes, but surely you think it's an improvement over the first game?) The characters all look cool (anyone else think Varric looked like Ray Winstone?) and they all had interesting personalities from what I could gather. I'm looking forward to getting to know them better.
The actual gameplay feels like a big step up from Origins. I always thought the first game felt clunky and disjointed, whereas everything in this demo flowed nicely and the combat felt great. Playing as a warrior, the special attacks all felt varied enough to be interesting while still remaining useful, and I'm looking forward to trying out the mage and rogue classes.
The menu system is a huge improvement, in my opinion. I love the abilities screen, where you can clearly see what each ability does and how you unlock new moves and buffs and whatnot. I'm a big fan of that.
I can understand that not everyone might like the changes Bioware made - to each their own, of course. Personally, the demo sold me on the game. It was always on my radar but I wasn't keeping track of it seriously; however I enjoyed the demo enough that I'm pre-ordering the game right now.
Awesome preview Joseph, cheers!
Thank you console users for turning it into a mindless casual game, well done you. Also thankyou pc pirates for not giving Bioware your money.
The gameplay was interesting, but very button mashy. I'm hoping it becomes more intricate as the game progresses.
It's not a bad demo for an RPG. Of course the only time I've really been sold on an RPG from a demo is Valkyria Chronicles. I'm buying this game because I trust Bioware knows what they're doing, not because it was an amazing demo.
Thank you console users for turning it into a mindless casual game, well done you. Also thankyou pc pirates for not giving Bioware your money." - I mean.. seriously.. did you play the PC verison? It plays identically to the first one, only with slightly quicker responses to your inputs.
How complex are your companions?
I'm really worried about this. The last time I bought a Dragon Age (Awakening), I was really disappointed in the narrative. A lot of it had to do with your party members being bland and 1-dimensional. I loved the first game; all of your companion characters had a unique and complex personality and history, and learning about all that provided a great break in-between missions. I'm just hope they continue that with Dragon Age 2. Also, I'm hoping we go outside of Kirkwall, which according to the Demo, we only do once or twice... I be ascared.
TLDR: Dialogue labels or whatever you want to call them are like playing the game with a dialogue tree FAQ open, to make sure you pick the best option to min/max your stats/relationships. If you're in to munchkining, that's great, but for people after a more in-depth roleplaying experience it's a definite step back.
My example will probably illustrate why Dragon Age II's system fails very well.
In The Witcher, you have a situation where a town is accusing a woman of being a Witch. You can handle this a NUMBER of different ways, including helping the town condemn her, helping her escape, and so on. The game only subtely hints that she might actually be an evil witch, but ultimately, it is your decision to make. Dragon Age Origins actually had a few similar situations, namely one huge one involving a possessed child.
Now in Dragon Age II, EVERY dialogue choice has an icon next to it. So in the case of The Witcher scenario, it may show "the evil face" when you're condemning the witch. It might show "the compassionate Greek leaf" if you side with the town. I really don't want that. It's a pretty juvenile method of telling me what's right and wrong - it's lazy storytelling, essentially divvying up in black and white, what is moral and what is not.
We live in a world where the vast majority of games spell out what is "right" and "wrong". Just look at inFamous 2! You have a damn "Angel" and "Devil" guidance NPC depending on what you pick! Devs think it's "realistic", but really, it's just an easy way to make a game. Do I fault Bioware for that, given the probably limited budget they have? No. But I still think the very few morally grey games we have out there should be commended. And that's exactly what The Witcher 2 is trying to do this year.
Overall, I feel like the demo is hard to rate because they left so much of the nitty-gritty stuff that keeps me engaged long term locked away. What I saw I enjoyed, but if the whole game were as restrictive as the demo was, I would quickly lose interest.
Quite frankly, I just wish they'd move away from the one-dimensional alignments altogether. Heck, the two-dimensional D&D system would be an improvement, as long as they welcome you to traipse around outside of the critical points.