Dragon Age II Interview
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 2280
1UP: For companions, while people tend to like their banter, I'm noticing a common sentiment: That people are a bit sad that they can't outfit their companion's armor anymore -- they can only upgrade it -- and it'd doubly odd that you can configure weapons and accessories, but not armor. What's behind that decision?
ML: Well, really, what we were looking for was the idea of stronger and more iconic appearances for the followers. Ones that could change over time, like Aveline, serve as a great example of story-driven progression; her role in the world is, in a lot of ways, influencing her look. It also seemed something that would address a concern that we had coming out of Origins, where the vast majority of screenshots would have the party members looking almost identical. And so, you would lose the distinctiveness of stuff like the Chantry robes that Leliana wore when you first met her; or seeing Morrigan in any kind of Chantry robe just felt wrong to us. Or worse was seeing Wynne in any of those "of the Witch" outfits.
So we looked that and asked ourselves if there's a way to give our companions a more distinct silhouette, or more distinct body shape or stance or pose or equipment so they stood out. So yes, I do think customization is really important to characters and followers. So we explored options like upgrading them or being able to increase their runeslots so that you can still interact with them to alter things like fire resistance and so on -- in a way, you can change, and you still had the amulets and the gems and so forth. Is it something we've seen a lot of feedback on? Absolutely. Is it something we're going to look at in the future? Sure -- nothing is set in stone. But what I do think was the success of it was, when you think of Isabela, you don't think of "girl in generic leather armor." When you think of Aveline, you think of her in her Captain's Plate, and I think that gives the characters a bit more of an imprint in the space they occupy mentally. But I don't think it's something we'll definitely pursue in the future -- it's something we're going to evaluate and see if there's a way we can get the best of both worlds. I certainly understand the urge to outfit your characters. And we'd also have to look at the way it can impact the looting mechanics.
1UP: For DA2's development schedule, I've been reading some conflicting info, so let me get this clarified once and for all: it's my understanding that DA2's development started before DA Origins shipped, correct?
ML: Sure, Dragon Age 2 was begun before Origins was released. Simply because the way development works, there were staggered roll-offs from each department. The art team had to be finished before the design team could do final lockdown who themselves had to be finished before audio lockdown who had to be finished before programming can lockdown and so on. So we began the process of Dragon Age 2 from the concept art level well before the release of Origins. Also, another factor in that was simply, the content that we finished for PC was held until the console version was released, so that we can release them all simultaneously. So there was that additional block of months there. And so this was us rolling into looking at the art style and doing some significant overhauls there, and some significant overhauls to the way the combat system works and plays out, the overall responsiveness of the engine from the ground up, framerate, performance, DirectX 11, you name it.
(...)
1UP: So while we're talking about development resources and decisions, I have to ask: Can you also explain the process of why the dungeon assets seem to get re-used a lot? That is one of the more prominent and universal sticking points from both reviewers and consumers.
ML: Absolutely, and I think it's a fair critique, and it's not one that I'm going to leave unaddressed, frankly. What we ran into was the situation where we had the ability to have more plots, more content, some side stuff that we knew would be optional, but we didn't have the assets to create entirely new levels for. So we took a long look at that, and said, "Is it important to have more content in the game, or is it important that the content be 100-percent unique?" So we tried to strike a balance, and tried to evaluate a good way to use this. I think the one thing that caught us a little bit off-side was, with the caves having much more interesting features than just "generic cave with left bend," -- you know, having things like collapsed or old masonry and so on -- is that end up probably creating a larger sense of repetition than we thought would originally occur. And the end result is something I look at and go, "Okay, I think that is a shame, and that is a fair critique, and something we can easily address in the future."
(...)
1UP: It's safe to say that there was a lot of people who expected "Origins 2," and to have more of Origins' gameplay (which in itself hearkens back to Baldur's Gate 2's gameplay). Dragon Age 2 is obviously not that; it's you taking RPGs in a different direction. In light of that, I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?
ML: It presents an intriguing thought experiment: is it viable to have a game that's closer to Baldur's Gate 2 in terms of the raw mechanics and execution? I don't think there's anything preventing it. However, I do think that, as a genre, if RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I know people yell at me for daring to use the word "evolve" -- but if they can't change or experiment, then the genre itself is going to stagnate. Not only in terms of mechanics, like in rehashes and stuff, which I think we mostly manage to avoid, but the bigger problem is that if we don't have RPGs that present a different type of experience, then we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who enjoy just that experience, and we drive others away.
In of itself, that runs the risk of genre death -- it becomes too referential or too reliant on people understanding that STR means strength which feeds into accuracy which results in damage done, and so on. You end up in a case where, the genre eventually burns out, or falls flat, or becomes too risky to take any risks in development, and so on and so forth, and that's not something I want to see happen.
So with Dragon Age 2, our goal was to look at the experience of Origins, which I'm very proud to have worked on, and look at how elements like the initial presentation, the start of the game, the overall feel of "when do statistics first show up?" and make sure that they're there -- absolutely there and absolutely part of the game. But that they're not there in a way that's imposing if you never played an RPG before. Because, as an RPG veteran going back to Ultima III, it's easy to forget how much of a hurdle there is when you first start into games of this complexity. And so we wanted to try to create an opening experience that helps bring you into the complexity -- how to do cross-class combos or bringing in specializations at level seven -- so that there was mastery to be had rather than a frontloaded, kind of daunting experience. So I think there is absolutely room to make an isometric six-player tactical combat RPG, but we shouldn't only be making those. Because if we do, we're going to get very self-referential, and potentially not see any RPGs coming out in the future.
