Dragon Age: Origins Comments by Robert Purchese

well im excited :) great inteview.

What`s happening to the world, it`s all core this and core that, what the hell is wrong with saying `traditional rpg`. If you`re making a traditional rpg, calling it `core` isn`t exactly enough to convert the GOW meathead crowd.

Disclaimer: many non meatheads have been know to have played GOW, and gone on to lead normal lives sans meatheadedness.

Questions.

How will you change the game to play well with a console controller?

We'll take this opportunity to improve on the game and streamline the interface for our console customers by giving them a customizeable AI component to each of your companions. You will also be able to switch to each individual companion and control him directly via a On Screen Display menu that is easier to control with a Joypad. Basically we've taken the Neverwinter Nights circular style interface and translated it to be controlled via the analogue stick.

Who decided that the best way to show the game off for the first time was with an uninspiring cutscene?

It wasn't me, it was EA.

Did you realize after you had finished Neverwinter Nights and got it out there that your focus on multiplayer had spoiled the single player tactical experience?

Nope.

Will you allow toolset modifications to be played and experienced on the console version(s)?

No. Microsoft didn't want us to and Sony is Sony.

Is the game a linear experience or more of a Baldurs Gate 2, open style experience where you can go anywhere you like?

All linear.



(I'm setting myself up to not be disappointed.)

6/10
(in hindsight year 2115: 8/10)

if the game simply follows all the rules it bioware laid down for BG 1 and 2, then this game will be amazing

It's a shame they're not doing anything more in the Forgotten Realms setting, but I am really looking forward to this. I just hope its a traditional RPG in terms of combat as well.

So it won't have an online component similar to that of Neverwinter Night? A pity - Neverwinter Nights needs replacing.

So it won't have an online component similar to that of Neverwinter Night? A pity - Neverwinter Nights needs replacing.


Good thing, in my opinion. They should concentrate on a great single-player experience rather than try too many things at once.

Yay! It's coming to consoles!

/is trying not to spend money on upgrading creaky old PC

@w00t
"Yay! It's coming to consoles!

/is trying not to spend money on upgrading creaky old PC"

---

yay its coming to PC first!
/is trying to justify having already upgraded his PC for Age of Conan, then being let down by Failcom, cancelling the sub and going back to old games that dont need 4gb of ram, geforce 9 cards or quad core processors... :O
hehe.
(or should that be /cry ? :0 )

This interview should be printied and stickified to black boards at each software company.

And few thousands of copies for Fallblivion makers.

Well, the interview does hint at couple of things. I'm concerned about one issue though. The guy skipped question of how long (even approximately) the game can be and just said that game length of baldur's gate is not possible with 'next gen content'.
Fine and well, but if that translates to 'You'll be able to finish the main story in one and half days tops, so about 14 hours' this might be a bit of a letdown, despite promising bits about story, choices and so on.
I never understood why 'next-gen' is used as an excuse to cut the size of story length in roleplaying games to something that would comfortably fit pac man. To me, Graphic (that's the majority of the next gen nonsense) does *not* make a roleplaying game.In many instances, it's even counterproductive to pump the graphic side too much. As evidenced by fallblivion. (called fallout 3 by beth for whatever reason)

Good thing, in my opinion. They should concentrate on a great single-player experience rather than try too many things at once.

Not entirely a good thing. No matter how unforgettable a game's single-player experience might be, you'll finish the game (maybe twice or thrice), perhaps see what the community has come up with, and then the game will be back on your shelf, collecting dust. Of course, mods prolong a game's life, but not as much as a robust multiplayer component. Would Neverwinter Nights 1 survive 6 years without its almost sandbox-like multiplayer?

He says he doesn't want to give away spoilers and he moments earlier spoilt one of the decisions. NICE WORK DAN!

Nice how they want their ruleset but everything, so far, still seems to look like it's working as dnd. Hopefully something megaunique is shown.

It would simply cost a phenomenal amount to create content for the amount of stuff that was in something like Baldur's Gate 2 for a next-gen game. Voice-acting, individual, distinguishable 3D models, settings etc - its not just a case of more writing and mapping. And if they threw in extra content without doing those things up to scratch, they'd get panned for it. Anyway, this could well have a 30-hour campaign and still have nowhere near the amount of content BG2 had.

They should have ignored voice acting and use procedurally generated content which saves hunks of space. That is exactly what old games did and they managed to come off massive in scope and size.

This really does look like it's gonna be a 30 hour game +more for "replay".

I'm in the mood for some meat.

Comparisons between this game and Neverwinter Nights scare me a little bit. Neverwinter Nights 2 was a disaster IMO. The slowest, ugliest engine ever. Hopefully Origins will not borrow any code or UI elements from that engine.

Loved BG, loved BG2, LOVED Planescape, liked NWN... but OMG NWN2, what happened?

@ChthonicEcho: Who wants to play the same game forever? Would we be here reading pre-release journalism about next year's games if we did?

@Silvervain: I'm sure a lot of devs would love to create a game that focuses on content and skips all of the costly "next-gen" trappings in order to make this more feasible/ cost-effective. Unfortunately expectations have changed, from consumers and from reviewers, and it would be really hard to sell a game that looked/ sounded like that in 2008. If you can't expect to sell it, you can't afford to make it.

Comparisons between this game and Neverwinter Nights scare me a little bit. Neverwinter Nights 2 was a disaster IMO.

Obsidian developed the sloppy sequel, not BioWare. Neverwinter Nights 1, which was developed by BioWare, was highly successful and is still played by a relatively fair amount of players today.

Who wants to play the same game forever? Would we be here reading pre-release journalism about next year's games if we did?

Yes, we would be, because one game cannot offer what another one can.

@darc
Every time I hear the argument that times have changed and games won't sell if they don't have photorealistic graphics (especially in relation to roleplaying games!) I can't help but wonder where does that data come from. So far, no one I talked with ever showed any proof that a *role playing game* has to have superb graphic to sell. On the other hand, I saw examples that graphic overload causes roleplaying games to be boring one playthrough demo affairs, as is the case with mass effect. Initially lauded as 'roleplaying game'.

In my opinion, claims that nowadays nothing counts but graphics are misguided: in relation to roleplaying games. Games of this type thrive on story, its details, including interactions between characters, and not glittery graphic.
First person shooters, yes, they might sell on graphic alone since as a genre, shooters didn't change much since the times of wolfstein 3d. But just because market is flooded with shooter clones that compete with each other with graphics, it does not mean that the same is true for roleplaying games. It's simply different kind of game, with different focus. Which is the reason that all the next gen talk (meaning 'we need super graphics or go bust') in relation to roleplaying games makes me wonder about where the roleplaying games go as a whole.

Perhaps it's just me, but while I played both baldurs gate 1 and 2 (not to mention planescape torment) many times over, I finished mass effect adventure with two playthroughs, and sour memory of purchase I really regreat.

PS.
There is indie game called dwarf fortress (which I found out thanks to thread following article about indie games here at eurogamer).
In it, you organize a group of dwarves that go out to establish new fort, which you then help them to run and turn into something comparable with moria (from lord of the rings). Game is really deep and damn addictive (even includes some roleplaying elements, as each dwarf has his or her story, personality and preferences)...and it has ascii graphics. I enjoy it a lot. Which proves that great idea is what makes game good. Graphic helps to flash the game potential, but that's all.
It's a bit like with make up. It won't turn ugly girl into beautiful one. But it will help to turn good looking girl into glamorous.
Bottomline: graphic is very small aspect of roleplaying games, and due to financial constraints during development, roleplaying games with glittery graphics very often lack in areas that decide quality of the game.

Dwarf Fortress uses procedurally generated content. So that's why it has amazing replay value and can, literally, last forever.

Darklands another awesome RPG had it as well. The only limitations are the number of combinations. That shouldn't be a problem with next gen, meaning we should be getting very 'meaty', to use Dan's overused word, thousand unique hour gameplays.

Won't happen of course because we want to waste out gigs with woo gritty textures which make up 80% of game.

Silvervein, I'm with you on this one, all I'm saying is the developer and publisher are at great risk if they invest tens, or hundreds of thousands into a game that makes a negative first impression on the average potential buyer. Even a review that acknowledges depth etc but cites poor graphics (and graphics are just one example) could have a negative impact on sales.

I think it's time to find a balance. Five or ten years ago I was often wowed by the latest and greatest graphics, but that's because the previous years games, typically, did look very bad. A few years ago I reached the point of "OK, that's pretty enough" and now I would just as soon play games that are more innovative. I think the industry will eventually catch on to that. Already you see great successes (ie. WOW) based on solid design as opposed to brute-force polycount/ photo-realism.

Chthonic, I think we just differ here. I can seldom find the patience to finish a game even once - even my favorite games - let alone play through them multiple times. And I have never once thought to myself "that game was too short." Then again, maybe I just spend to much time at the office. :( (I'm an old dude.)

'Every time I hear the argument that times have changed and games won't sell if they don't have photorealistic graphics'

Don't set up strawman arguments. He didn't say 'photorealistic'. Generally agree with the rest of your comments though; would love to see another game with the same replayability and depth of BG2, regardless of the graphics.

@CouldntResist
Call it a strawman if you must. Still I did have discussions about how games have to have great graphics to sell many times over: most recently at fallout 3 forums.
Regardless...all I'm saying is that the trend to blow up graphics at the cost of everything else is killing roleplaying games, that don't need, or rely on super graphics to be great games.
PS.
The same can be said about the trend of adding voiceovers for every npc as well as stay alley cats. While it is nice, due to physical limitations it means that you don't get as many dialogues in a roleplaying game as you should, and end up with another glitter that doesn't help the game (roleplaying game) in any way, but instead limits the story in a significant way.

P.P.S
Actually I should stop using term roleplaying game, since definition of that encompasses everything from pac-man to guitar hero. I think story driven game would be a better name for games like baldur's gate, or planescape torment.

@ Silvervein - "PS. - There is indie game called dwarf fortress (which I found out thanks to thread following article about indie games here at eurogamer)."
"Bottomline: graphic is very small aspect of roleplaying games, and due to financial constraints during development, roleplaying games with glittery graphics very often lack in areas that decide quality of the game. "

I'm sure you and everyone here are correct that cutting edge graphis in a RPG often come at expense of story, gameplay, content or whatever we call it. The problem is that money is what matters.

Oblivion as dry and limp as the story and world were - made mega bucks. So there will be more -likely several. However, Planescape: Torment with all of it's depth and story was considered as financial disappointment. It's probably the last we'll ever see of it. One rocked at getting people to purchase and one struggled to.

You have to convince people to try a product initially so they know it's worth their money. One easy way is for it to look good.
I've never heard of Dwarf fortress, I went and glanced the wiki page and some images....I wouldn't pay $10 to play the game, it just looks bland/cheap/old. Now, you may know better than me about the actualy game. You may know that the game would offer more enjoyment to gamers that Fallout 3 ever could....but new users don't - they have to be wooed.

Pretty graphics are a siren's call to gamers that aren't sure what their next purchase should be - and old flat sprites are a sure sign that this game will be passed over by all but those who already love it.

I'd play 30 or 40 dollard for a Fallout 3 with the original engine/graphics/etc... if it were the quality of the first 2. But I'm one of maybe 150,000 who would buy the dated looking game immedialtely. Then add in another 100,000 who could be convinced to buy it from the positive reviews it would get. Bethesda is hoping to sell about 2 million copies at $50 with what they put together...doesn't make the decision hard for developers.

As I said before, and as you agreed, graphics doesn't make good roleplaying game. So to your question about money, I pose another: how many people who will buy the game because of shiny graphics will regreat the purchase after discovering that other than graphics the game has nothing to offer? And how many of those will buy another game by the same company, advertised and made exactly the same way as previous one? Where are company profits then?

will bad gameplay get people to stop buying? Perhaps for some. Honestly, I don't think the average consumers is that smart. They fall into the hype. Sure terrible games like what Sonic has become will keep people away. But all the games that merit 7's or 8's on game sites? Yeah most will still buy them. Assasin's Creed, Dungeon Siege II, Heroes of Might and Magic V...I've never played any and ratings were average, but they sold well enough to stay open.
And really the ones most complained about by "old school" RPG players (which I'd agree to being one) are actaully critically acclaimed. Oblivion, Mass Effect, Fable. All got awards from numerous sites, despite the many flaws we all see in them. Make no mistake Fable II and Fallout 3 will garner equal amounts of praise and money if they can manage to only repeat the mistakes of their last games and not fall completely on their faces like Too Human has.

besides, devs at Bethesda came up with their perfect plan. (equal parts lazy and genious)

I bought Oblivions b/c I'd played and enjoyed Daggerfall/Morrowind/Bloodmoon. With Oblivion I was a bit let down....then came the mods. I was able to fix the broken game they released and still get my money's worth...I just had to wait for other users to fix it for me.

Fallout will likely be the same. I'll buy it b/c I love fallout and no matter what they realease I'll get a good bit of enjoyment out of it. Then the player community will get reved up and fix all Bethesda's blunders.

Basically, Bethesda has started a new type of gaming. They realease pretty games with average ( sometimes broken) gameplay mechanics and a dull but passable story. Then they wait for the players to finish the game for them. Basically, players buy a BETA version and with the toolset do their own tweaking.

Even with all the user tweaking are they as great as Blizzard or Bioware's titles? No, but they certainly become worth my time and money.

In a few months when Fallout 3 releases to an explosion of sales - at that point try and deny that Oblivion's stale gameplay and dry story really kept gamers from buying their next title.

smber you make some good points but I'll add that a mediocre RPG like Oblivion can be fun for an RPG novice. But that same novice might not like something just like Oblivion again after that first RPG experience. They'll want something deeper and more challenging. In other words, the "average" gamer will eventually get bored with cookie-cutter flawed RPG's. Sure fallout will sell and there will be lots of hype but if it is a "repackaged Oblivion" and not something truly better than Oblivion, there will be a gamer backlash against the game after a month of release. Drangon Age looks interesting but after the crappy Jade Empire, I'm not convinced this will be yet another "RPG-Lite."