Dragon Age 2 is a curious beast. It loosely resembles its predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, due to its tweaked combat, change in visual style, and emphasis on a different protagonist. We liked it, but it certainly left us with some questions. So to that end, we chatted with DA2 lead designer Mike Laidlaw, and asked him about some lingering story questions that we were curious about, the decisions behind the companion design and other mechanics, and even about the recycled dungeon design.
1UP: First of all, it's been a week since Dragon Age 2 has shipped. What have you guys been doing lately, now that your game is done?
Mike Laidlaw: When we finish, there's kind of three things that happen, and of course there's one thing about games: they "finish" before they're on shelves. What we try to do is, there's always a little bit of extra effort in the end. Some people take vacation because they're feeling like, "oh, phew, I got that done"; we try to stagger that out so that there're always hands on-deck for support. And that's one of our priorities when a game hits shelves: keeping our eyes on our forums, technical feedback, questions, and so forth. Help out where we can, and certainly log anything that we can that turn out to be bugs so that we can patch it. We have an initial beta patch out already for some pretty urgent issues on the PC -- really to make sure the support can get done.
For those not on vacation, or those not in the warroom to make sure that things aren't exploding, are looking at DLC, looking at future plans, and figuring out what new content we're going to do. A big part of that is looking at reviews -- understanding what people loved or hated about the game. Seeing's what mixed or very divisive, which is often an artistic success, and then looking at all of those elements together and thinking, "okay, our next steps need to be guided by that." You never want to go in blind, or without a bit of humility, as no game is ever "perfect."
1UP: Having experimented with a framed narrative, any interest in trying it again down the road? Is there anything you would want to change about your approach?
ML: I think ultimately, the framed narrative does a very good job of two things: one, it tells the story in a different way, and that was something we consciously wanted to do with Dragon Age 2 -- which was to set out and not do the traditional rehash; we didn't want to just do the Origin story all over again, and two, to not tell the "classic fantasy story" with the big bad looming over the hill that you can sort of see and then target. So the framed narrative was something that mechanically helped us to create a sense of curiosity -- to find out what happens next through, essentially, dire predictions and warnings, and a state of the world that seems very different from what you'd expect Dragon Age to move into. So the framed narrative conveyed that very quickly upfront.
And I think it did so in a way, that I'm very happy with, that it didn't confuse -- other than some potential misunderstanding or element of "wait, what happened" right at the very beginning. But I think it did a very good job in being clear as to how it worked as a storytelling mechanic. "Oh I see, we're not moving forward"; it's very consistent in how it's used. The other thing that I think is a very big success, and I'm very happy with, is seeing people start think about it, and start to ask themselves, "what does it mean, if this entire narration, isn't real." Well, for the most part, we're trying to make sure the player's agency isn't undercut. But it adds a layer of meta-storytelling; are there other elements that Varric [the narrator] is exaggerating that we don't get called out on? It creates a layer of thought that lingers with you after it's done, and makes you go, "well, what's next? How much of that was real?"
1UP: So you're okay if people think Varric is lying the entire time?
ML: It leaves itself open to that interpretation. But, it doesn't do so in a way that makes you spend the entire game frustrated by going, "this is all going to be a lie anyway." And another thing: it's not all going to be taken away five minutes from now. It's something you can actually contemplate, and kind of like Schrodinger's Cat, you may never actually know how much of that was entirely true. But it creates a second layer of thought about the game; something more meta that allows you to contemplate and go, "I wonder," and that's something that I think gave the game's story more endurance than it would otherwise have.
1UP: So my first story question is, what led to the decision to make it focus on a named protagonist, Hawke, instead of continuing the Warden's story?
ML: It's funny, if you actually look at it, the Warden's name is Aeducan or Amell or so on and so on. That already happened, but to put so much emphasis on the last name, and why we decided to do that, really was because we wanted to achieve something with Dragon Age 2. And specifically, what we wanted to do was, as lead writer David Gaider comments, "kick over the sandcastle." The endstate of Origins was that the world had been saved: "good job, we stopped the Blight, and we're good now, right? Everything good, right?" And that state is not one that inherently interesting -- it's not one that creates a sense of drama or tension or expectation of what's coming next. It did a great job of encapsulating that story, and it certainly left enough danglers for the future, but what we wanted to do was to take conventions and elements of the Dragon Age world that people knew and understood, and let people know that our intent is to change and evolve this world. That we won't let it stagnate and become a "oh, it'll take place 20 years later and it will be the same with another Blight."
Dragon Age 2, by having a main character, a character who gets swept into the events that precipitate this change, needed a storytelling mechanic that challenged us and asked us to try something new. But also allowed us to show how the world changed without it being some sort of footnote in history. It allowed us to show that it wasn't just some grand conspiracy or just something that we decided to do, but that it was something that involved a person, and had an intensely personal element to it.
xbox 360 games xbox game list xbox games reviews games pc games
No comments:
Post a Comment