"I've been playing RPGs since ... Ultima 2 territory, way back on my PC," says Mike Laidlaw, lead designer on BioWare's Dragon Age series. "And it's like, I remember, actually Ultima 3 did this: 'Choose your gender: male, female, other.' And I was just mystified by that for a long time. I don't even know what other is, man. Am I a worm or something?"
It's clear that Laidlaw loves role-playing games, loves thinking and talking about them. It's also clear to anyone who's played Dragon Age: Origins, that Laidlaw has built an RPG franchise behind which the spectre of older games is always lurking. Some ghosts of games past, like Baldur's Gate, serve as examples for the fledgling series while others are cautionary tales.
For example, Laidlaw's androgynous worm from 1983: "As intriguing as that is, it was kind of hard to parse what that meant," Laidlaw says. What effect would that have? Would it change the game? I [didn't] know." This highlights what he considers to be one of the major pitfalls of the so-called "classic" RPG.
"To me, the hallmarks of a classic role-playing game would be: story-driven, stat-based, and to some lesser degree, there's a bunch of ancillary baggage that comes with it. I have inventory, I have customization." Laidlaw happily places both Dragon Age: Origins and its sequel in the classic category. "I think Dragon Age II has all the hallmarks ... and those elements were really critical to, I think, Origins' success.
"But ..." There is always a but.
"I think [Dragon Age II] sidesteps what I see as almost like traditions. Traditional weak points of the classic RPG are ... they're daunting. High barrier to entry. They're hard to get into," he says. BioWare's own player-tracking statistics tell a similar tale: a significant portion of Origins players had their own mystifying "other" moments, dropping the game after only an hour.
"They weren't even getting an Achievement," Laidlaw continues. The team was tempted to chalk those dropped players up to rentals, but the stats made it clear that people simply dropped the game.
Those stats had a dramatic effect on Laidlaw and his team, prompting them to totally re-evaluate how Dragon Age II fits into the auspices of classic role playing. "So our goal with 2, I think, is to strip away a lot of that barrier to entry to let you ease into the game," says Laidlaw.
It is Laidlaw's hope that players will be able to gradually immerse themselves in the Dungeons and Dragons-based mechanics through a set of increasingly-complex stages. Deciding, for example, that "I'm pretty sure I'd like to play as a rogue who is male," is the first step, says Laidlaw. "And then I kind of ease into, 'Ok, cool, these are my starting abilities and do I want to go more archery, do I want to dual-wield, or do I want to ... use more bombs and poisons?" Laidlaw explains that the team was adamant about not moving away from it's Gygax-inspired bedrock, preferring to streamline the tutorial and user interface instead.
While dense, opaque games like Ultima steered BioWare toward gentler entry points, games like Planescape: Torment guided writer David Gaider as he started drawing out the story and characters of Dragon Age II. Unlike Origins, whose protagonist is malleable blank slate, DAII features Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall, complete with his own backstory and character arc. (Hawke's appearance and gender are entirely player-defined, though.)
"As soon as you provide a voiced player, you're stepping on the player's toes a little bit," Gaider explains. "On the other hand, there are RPGs that can do that: Planescape:Torment, I think, was one of the best RPGs of all time."
"You didn't have to decide who the Nameless One was, but that didn't stop you from feeling agency with regard to [his] choices and feeling like you were in charge of [his] life," Gaider continues. "We're not giving you a totally defined character, nor are we saying you can be anybody."
Gaider's measured approach to his inspirations find a corollary from the design team. "You can tell where we came from, you absolutely can see the roots, but we want our own direction, our own feel and our own style," Laidlaw says.
Those roots clearly include the lineage of older BioWare RPGs, particularly Baldur's Gate. The notion that Origins was somehow supposed to be a revitalization of Baldur's Gate still permeates, whether by design or through the imprecise alchemy of the internet, most discussions about the game. With Dragon Age II poised to "give the franchise its own identity," as Laidlaw puts it, there exists the sense that old-school RPGs may be a dying breed, vestigial organs of the modern game.
Baldur's Gate had a lot to offer in the creation of Origins, and Laidlaw doesn't shy away from the comparisons. "Those gorgeous, gorgeous bitmaps that were essentially the levels were hand-drawn and ... that gave it its own character," he says. "So, with Dragon Age: Origins, we definitely tried to modernize that feel, right? It's got a lot of the aspects that made Baldur's Gate stand out and really work, but at the same time we wanted to move it in it's own direction, hence 'spiritual successor' and not 'direct successor.'"
Laidlaw is straightforward in his appreciation for the game, but also in his reservations about aping the style. "But I think that, you know, probably the best way to play a Baldur's Gate-style game is actually to go play those games. Because what they are is -- I hesistate to say it -- a time capsule," he concludes. "They are games that are consistent with the tech, platform, and time -- everything that was developed in Baldur's Gate at that time was done so within a context of what was capable.
"I think there would be a danger in trying to recreate that exactly. ... As a developer, you would feel like [you are] deliberately ignoring advances in user interface, advances in control schemes to try and get that retro feel and I'm not sure it would stand as strong because it's taking something out of context."
Laidlaw is, of course, optimistic about his approach: "And I think it's paying off because it makes the game feel internally consistent with a game made in 2010."
Contest:
4:00 PM on 02.24.2011
| 
What DAO needed was tweaking for the combat system. Make attacks slightly faster, allow players to hit enemies more often, etc. However, Bioware went way overboard.
Still, the combat is satisfying in DA2. It's just not realistic and not BALANCED.
You can spout all the BS you want about higher difficulty levels, but at the moment that they are not available in the demo, I have no point of reference to argue from another perspective.
DA:0 also could have used a lot of improvements in other areas, namely with plot holes (why is it assumed that you're the leader, why does the army only fire one volley of arrows, etc.), more balanced main quests (Orzammar is an example of a very drawn out quest, so is the mage tower, but only due to the FUCKING FADE, thank god for mods to skip that), more choices, more skills, less cryptic and unclear stats system, better voice acting (I love the elven parts of the story but holy hell is their voice acting bad at times), as well as many others improvements.
Still a great game, but DA2 looks like a step backwards.
That said, I love Joseph's articles on the series (you rock, orcist!), yet I'm flabbergasted that Laidlaw, who has allegedly been a hardcore RPG fan this long is pushing to strip down a lot of features that made those games good in the first place.
"With Dragon Age II poised to "give the franchise its own identity," as Laidlaw puts it, there exists the sense that old-school RPGs may be a dying breed, vestigial organs of the modern game."
Translation - we saw that Mass Effect 2 as mostly an action title made lots and lots of monies, and DAO didn't make enough monies, so we want to transplant things like monotone talking Shepard [Hawke], dialogue wheels, renegade/paragon, and action gameplay to make more monies.
[Disclaimer: Killias man, you have some great opinions, but so do DA2 dissenters!]
Dragon Age Origins is Bioware's best selling game.
Then I suggest you go back to playing King's Quest where there were dead end's and usability was unheard of. If there's a choice between your so-called sophistication and fun, I choose fun.
It's like I'm being told by BioWare that I was wrong to like DA:O, and I kind of resent that. I'm not making my mind up about the game now, and I'm definitely going to buy it BECAUSE I liked DA:O so much, but they're really making it seem like the opinions of DA:O's biggest fans don't really matter that much to them. We'll see. I truly hope it ends up being an awesome game.
What? Brent Knowles is DA:O's lead designer. He left Bioware because of what EA and Bioware wanted to do with the sequel. He stayed for the transition while the console ports were being made and at that point Laidlaw take the torch, but the different philosophy between the two games should be obvious.
Just going by 360 sales (VGChartz), Mass Effect 2 sold .5m more.
The sales of Mass Effect 2 on PS3's late debut stunted it a bit - but IMO, Mass Effect 2 is clearly more popular.
I wouldn't trust number-based sources like VGChartz, as the digital market is rarely covered and Origins was most successful on PC.
I didn't say I was pissed DA2 is designed for the thinking impaired. I'm pissed they won't admit that's what they are doing. I just want the developers to be honest for once and not sugarcoat their dumbing down of what should be a deep, strategic RPG into an action-oriented gorefest with huge titties everywhere.
Not that I don't love me some titties.
I don't know about you, but going from this:
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/395948-dragon-age-origins-windows-screenshot-flemeth-the-legend-in.jpg
to this:
http://www.nitpixels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/az_flemeth.jpg
is not something I think ANYONE asked for except the sick minded.
I completely agree, I was shocked at how much Dragon Age 2 sucked! It was total crap! Oh wait, my mistake. It hasn't even been released yet. How can you claim to judge an entire game on a brief demo? Give it a chance, man.
On another note, I don't understand all the hatred towards the streamlining business. Personally, I'm all for it. The endless menus and stat tracking and whatnot really bugged me in the first game. And even if the only difference in DA2 was that the interface was a lot cleaner (which it is), then that'd be awesome. But it's more than that. I love the new look for the abilities page and the inventory looks nicer and everything just looks neater overall. Is that a bad thing?
I've seen a lot of complaints about the removal of the isometric view. Playing on the PS3, this means nothing to me. I can understand why people would be annoyed but surely it's not the end of the world, is it? Was it that crucial to your enjoyment that you can't have fun with a game if it doesn't have an isometric view? Seems like a bit of a small thing to take issue with. I'll patiently await the inevitable insults for playing the "inferior console version" and such like.
And what's wrong with simplifying and streamlining the game? Or "dumbing it down", if you see that as a negative thing. If it helps new players get into the game easier, that's awesome. More sales = better profit = improved chance of a sequel. And for veteran players, is it that big a deal? You've still got the whole tactics gameplay and a whole bunch of skill trees to play around with, plus the main character actually has a personality this time around (by that I mean when you select a dialogue option, he/she actually puts some character behind it, instead of just silence and then having to interpret the tone of your reply based on other people's reactions.)
If there's one legitimate gripe I had with the demo, it's that all the female characters had weirdly large boobs that were kinda distracting. But in the grand scheme of things, that really is a very minor issue.
The way I see it, before raging all over the place about Bioware have utterly ruined the franchise or whatever, all the people slagging off the demo (seriously, it's just a demo. Get a grip.) should calm the hell down and give the game a chance.
Haha, I considered doing the same with you, although I probably wouldn't have named you personally. Well, you beat me to it. Congrats, haha.
In all seriousness, I never really deny that the console version of the game may have major problems. I go out of my way to add that caveat to pretty much everything I've said about the game in the past couple of weeks.
However, based purely on the PC version, I think that people are going overboard with their critiques. The PC version plays pretty much just like the first one only with slightly more satisfying combat. I agree that it feels easier, but this is a demo. I mean, it's not like the first hour of DAO was difficult or anything. DAO really started busting my balls in the first two major story paths I went on.. before, honestly, becoming somewhat easier again towards the end as my character became more powerful.
It's quite possible that the game will be easier, but I haven't seen anything that solidifies that this is definitely true or that the game has been "consolized" on the PC or dumbed down, etc. etc. I can't judge difficulty based on the demo, but the basic mechanics feel very much in line with DAO.
Still, like I said, I have no experience with the console release of either DAO or DA2. I have no comments there. It's quite possible that the graphics are shit and the gameplay has become hack'n'slash on the PS3 and 360.
I think it's certainly dangerous to recreate Baldur's Gate exactly. People who want that have a lot of random indie PC RPGs they can play that provide slavish worship of the old. However, it is equally dangerous to recreate Mass Effect exactly, as ten years from now we will be saying the exact same thing about it as we do about Baldur's Gate.
Stats are much less ambiguous! Not only that, but they're more sensible, and seem to encourage a more reasonable dispersement. No longer are tanks encouraged to go the route of DEX over CON; I was always left with a sour taste in my mouth by that sort of divergence from the norm.
I just hope there's a level of complexity added to the logic, like there was with rogues focusing on dexterity and cunning.
The Different:
DA2's combat has a heavy emphasis on activated abilities. This is particularly noticeable when playing as a rogue; you no longer need to enabled the Momentum sustained ability, then position yourself behind enemies to get the passive "backstab" bonus. Instead, auto attacks are seemingly more consistent, regardless of position, and backstab is an activated ability with quick cooldown.
I have a feeling this can lead to some intense boss-fights requiring intelligent micromanaging and tactic configurations. I hope it's as well balanced as it could be, and not a just a simplistic reduction of combat.
The Bad (at least for PC):
The camera is atrocious. The distance from which you can hover around your character is noticeably reduced, and the isometric view is gone. The latter removal was disheartening to many people, but I defended BioWare after seeing their demonstration videos, thinking that you would still have full and free-roaming control to pan across an area, just like you could with the isometric view - but simply more zoomed in. BUT... There is no free-panning of the battlefield.
Using an archer is undoubtedly going to be hell, because it'll be a pain in the ass to differentiate one enemy from another at large distances... unless they're nerfing the range of archers as well.
Also, if the demo is any indication (and I realize it's capped at DX11, High), the graphics are also very muddy compared to the previous game. That wouldn't bother me at all for an RPG, because I'd prefer a game with lesser graphics and more content... but the performance is also worse as well.
Everything about the sequel, save a couple tweaks in the game dynamics, reeks of a poor PC port.
Games can be streamlined without being dumbed-down, but the second you start worry about about pulling in the mainstream gamer and profit-margins (which is all this talk seems to be suggesting) you're leaving the hardcore fans behind and changing the game into something less tactical and more about hitting/shooting stuff.
I wanted a strategic, party-based RPG.
I don't give a shit how many sales they get or how high the chances of a sequel are if the games are going to be shitty.
As for the main character actually having more character... thats hit or miss. I like that the character speaks. I don't like that he lacks emotion in his speech.
DA2 is a step backwards. If they wanted to make an action RPG, call it something else. Create a new IP and leave Dragon Age for people who want something similar, as small as those similarities may be, to Baldurs Gate.
This isn't about new design and creative integrity. It's about making bank and nothing else.
I'll repeat my point from earlier. Don't try and convince everyone that this is anything but trying to make more money.
I need the real thing. It's a shame I can't play as a rouge dwarf but I completly understand why theyd make the changes they've talked about.
Bioware haven't really made a bad game that I know of so I'm happy to let the hugely successfull game designers make the design desisions and I just play and LOVE the game!
Wait, wait .. I know isometric view is gone, but you're saying that you can no longer pan away from the selected character? Honestly? I don't understand. How do you play ranged characters, or use AoE effectively? Do they not want people to use tactics?
Bloody hell. You've just made me seriously, seriously rethink my pre-order.
How dare they...
And if the final product is more stable, I sincerely hope there's a mod to allow for panning the camera across the battlefield. I don't care if it's not an isometric view; I just want to be able to fully see what's happening across a battlefield, regardless of which character I'm controlling!!!
Can't wait to have a chat when the game is out!
This is what I always fear when people base their product on stat-tracking. The rough edges get smoothed out, the game gets redesigned for people who don't even like RPGs, and you end up with something else.
Meanwhile, Dark Souls is coming out this year. So, if he's not going to make hardcore RPGs, they should really just stop name-dropping it. There are at least a few people out there who are still doing it.
To you and anyone else who thinks Shepard is monotone, play female. Jennifer Hale is actually a voice actress.
Female Shepard is the only way to play the game. Female Hawke might end up that way too.
Agreed. Hale is awesome! Unfortunately I stubbornly play my RPG characters male.
There. I said it.
I love the balls out of Bioware, I really do, but I absolutely despise the dialogue wheel system beyond belief. Fact is, a voiced character really really harms my immersion in a game. Unfortunately, namedropping Planescape: Torment means nothing to me, but I don't think there's ever been a Western RPG with a voiced protagonist that I've ever felt immersed in.
You either go the JRPG route with a bunch of characters who I have no control over and watch and create an immersive story via their emotions that I empathise with or you let me have full control over what my character is and rely on me to imagine the voice.
You don't go to some weird halfway house where I'm meant to project onto Hawke, yet he's not what I would want to be, acts differently to me and speaks in a way that I don't feel is appropriate for the character that I'm trying to /be/
THAT explains why I've been getting flamed so hard.
Fuck everybody who thinks otherwise, I'm God.
But what does it being on a console have anything to do with what you're talking about? Hawke is voiced on consoles and PC, so I don't really see the connection.
The camera is atrocious, and seems to have a mind of it's own. This is the worst part of the experience. Selecting enemies with a ranged character is a real pain, but because of the limited zoom and inability to pan, switching to a ranged character seems to be the only way to get any perspective on a battle. Simply put, it's lame. It really hurts the ability to judge AoE spells, as well.
Some of the menus have taken a step back, too. The Tactics menu was clunky and huge, and not intuitive at all. The Skills menu was annoying, and doesn't let you see anything at a glance.
The actual changes to combat are mostly positive, though, especially Warrior skills that let you close ground on enemies. I think they took some pointers from WoW in that department. Speaking of Warriors, I really like the variable sibling thing, which seems designed to keep you from having too many Warriors of Mages.
In short, the positives are very good, and the negatives very bad. By the way, after playing with both, Female Hawke is definitely the way to go. Of course, I always use female characters, anyway, so I'm glad of that.
That way, the main character could have been the one to father Morrigan's god-child then turn around and became the King and Queen of Ferelden (with Alistair and Anora at either side at the same time)! Now, I feel a bit cheated.
It doesn't look as if Dragon Age 2 will include it,either. Oh,well. Maybe there's hope for it to be in DA 3?
They've managed to give gamers something new to complain about with that interview alone so that's a clear sign of progress right there.
Apologies, should be clarified, I realise that my initial statement may not have been entirely relevant to what I ended up saying (Blasted random thought patterns). I'm saying if you played the Original DA on a console your experience was going to just be worse than that of the PC. If you give PC all the options it should have, the RPG a console player will experience just has to be worse.
You lack modding capability, overhead tactical viewpoint, a significant number of hotkeys, mouse turning, easy ways to navigate through dialogue (The last one is important). Basically you play DA on consoles you will inevitably get a worse version as long as the PC version is built to be the best it could possibly be. I don't see how a console gamer actually enjoyed the first Dragon Age and the Destructoid review at the time was reflective of this.
On console a dialogue wheel makes sense, you highlight the options, colour code them according to console buttons and the paraphrasing means you don't have to try to analogue stick down through like 8 different options.
Of course the sacrifice the wheel makes is "true" control over what your character is going to say. You also get more tangential irritating stuff such as "Investigate" which in most gamer's minds is now code for "Shit that doesn't actually do anything apart from provide irrelevant exposition that won't help in the future."
To justify that sacrifice further then you get full voice acting, which is something as mentioned that I'm not a fan of and is worsened by the male voice actors not being all that good. I find it somewhat difficult to gender bend when I'm trying to create a character that I have a link with beyond just empathy, so it's very unlikely that I'll run female on my first play through.
The point I make originally is that in attempting to make DA more friendly to consoles via the introduction of the dialogue wheel you really harm PC and the upside that it has. I think that's misguided. In that situation, I would have much preferred if Bioware had just conceded consoles were a lost cause for this and gone with developing the best possible PC game they could instead of harming the latter for the benefit of the former.
Too say those games are a time capsule is a bit silly, DEMON'S SOULS did an amazing job of bringing back the OLD SCHOOL with a new school twist. That's why DEMON'S SOULS is a much more interesting, unique, and more enjjoyable game.
Mass Effect is still infinitely better than DAO in my opinion, but we'll see with DA2. The demo for DA2 SEEMS better than DAO, but not totally sold that making a game prettier and easier makes it better. We will see...