Let's see the latest from Mike Laidlaw from the pages of Game Informer:
Was there ever a point in development when you considered additional narrators besides Varric to provide another perspective on the events
We certainly did, but realized the danger of doing so was that the story would become muddled. We didn't want to layer confusion by making the players constantly ask whether anything they were doing was real.
How did you determine which characters from Origins and Awakening to include in the sequel
As a general rule, it was a matter of asking which characters seemed to offer information about the world's evolution (such as Alistair the King's appearance) or who logically made sense to appear in the course of the game due to political or geographic locations
When creating interesting companion characters, what considerations come first?
We try to make all of our companions interesting, real people, rather than getting over-focused on their "role" up front. There's certainly some lean to make sure that there's some exposure to, say, elves, but we wouldn't ever stop at just delineating a character as "elf warrior." So our approach has been to make sure we do have enough combat coverage, which usually means developing more characters than we need. The ones who don't fit the current story or the combat and race balance? Well, we tuck them away for later.
Many of the caves and building interiors are repeated, even though the locations are supposed to be different. What kind of limitations necessitated this decision?
In the balance of production, we realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories, content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters
The fast-paced combat system of the console version is a large improvement over Origins' console entry. How did you zero in on the parts of the system that needed the most attention?
Lots of both formal and informal usability testing. The real key, we discovered, was that of expectation space. Controllers carry with them the feel that "these buttons are designed to do things." Whether jump or attack or grapple, controllers feel at their best when they trigger a response. The question then became whether we could look at our combat system as a whole and get that level of responsiveness while still using our RPG rules, stats, inventory, and so on as the determining factor in the effect of the action. Another key consideration was ensuring that the changes didn't make the game impossible to play on the PC, which is why we kept to an attack/ability paradigm rather than combos or other action game mechanics.
Do you see Dragon Age ever revisiting the traditional tactical gameplay found in Origins?
It really depends on the definition of tactical. For some, it simply means "slower." For others it means more complicated combat scenarios and more engaging/challenging foes. To the former, I would say no. I personally find the responsiveness and personality of the new combat system to be much better for Dragon Age as a whole. My experience with the game feels more like I'm in control, rather than issuing orders, and that direct correlation to my actions is something I really enjoy. This is speaking as a habitual PC pause-and-player.
The rogue occupies a clearer role in combat now, but why did you decide to downplay the importance of positioning? (like with the backstab skill)?
Positioning still plays a pretty significant role in the rogue abilities, for two reasons. First, many enemies have what we call a "frontward bias," which means that they are more damaging and more effective when fighting to the front. As less durable characters, rogues are far more survivable when fighting from behind. Secondly, all characters receive a silent boost to their critical chance when "flanking" a foe, or fighting from behind, which in turn plays into the many "does extra X when landing a crit" abilities that rogues can acquire. And don't get started on Shadows.
Ultimately, the backstab skill is designed to address a personal peeve with melee rogues from Origins: There was no way to quickly move into a flanking position, and doing so often caused myriad pathfinding issues. We experimented with a repositioning skill to get behind foes with a slick roll, but that felt lackluster compared to the rogues other abilities so we added an attack to it. Backstab was born.
Meredith plays a significant role late in the story, but is largely absent for the rest of the game. Why keep a prominent antagonist in the background for so long?
The "prominent antagonist" is a staple of fantasy, be it the brooding eye of Sauron or the endless hordes of the archdemon. For Dragon Age II, we wanted to attempt something different and break the mold and try to vilify circumstance, rather than a specific evil. It's a story of how heroes are made, not born, and I think that by the same token, it's a story of how the antagonist need not always be the villain. To me, that's a very human tale. I believe the early game likely could have used some additional appearances by Meredith, but we were likely being over-cautious of her being perceived as a source of confusion or frustration for players: "I think she's important, but she feels disconnected from my current goals!"
What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?
I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however, presents a solid, and consistent challenge to
veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause-and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important
So in Mike Laidlaw's oppinion PC gamers should STFU and L2P on hard. STOP PLAYING ON EASY!
