Dragon Age: Origins gameplay and discussion thread.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/dl...agon-age/60438
Trailer

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Talking Darkspawn!

Something that got me thinking after watching that is if your choices in the game will carry over into the expansion like in ME1-2.

For example what if you keep Logain in your party in the end and sacrifice yourself, does that mean he will be around in the expansion?

15 hrs seems so little though.....I'm sure on my first day with DO I must of easily logged in seven hours or more, I was completely hooked on it. Finishing a $40 expansion in two days sounds like a bad investment if you want to get the most out of your money.

But, it's still awesome and I'm sure I'll get it sooner or later either at that price or less, Bioware appears to be a developer which you can trust to put out quality work.

Official homepage for the expansion is up. http://dragonage.bioware.com/awakening

Alistair certainly seems back. If he's the returning party member or just king isn't explained in the trailer (1 old and 5 new party members).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Official homepage for the expansion is up. http://dragonage.bioware.com/awakening

Alistair certainly seems back. If he's the returning party member or just king isn't explained in the trailer (1 old and 5 new party members).

---

That whiny little :daisy:! The main reason I wanted him to be king is so that I could take the throne from him. :furious3:

In the trailer, definitely looks like Alistair is the King, which also helps in fighting the Darkspawn.

As for the talking Darkspawn, for some reason, I got the feeling it used to be an ex-warden, hence how it is powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That whiny little :daisy:! The main reason I wanted him to be king is so that I could take the throne from him. :furious3:

---

Heh, I really liked him as a tank. Usually a big battle involved my party all dying (even Shale!) and then Alistair killing everything by himself.

I don't think Alistair is the one coming back in the party. He's either dead or king.

My bets are for Morrigan, because all players love her. Men think she's hot and funny, and women would like to be her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I don't think Alistair is the one coming back in the party. He's either dead or king.

My bets are for Morrigan, because all players love her. Men think she's hot and funny, and women would like to be her.

---

I highly doubt it will be Morrigan because she runs off and disappears with the ancient god child in her womb.

It is a shame there aren't more return characters, or even a chance for the different characters to meet eachother

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I don't think Alistair is the one coming back in the party. He's either dead or king.

---

I think the description said that you can see the returning party member in the video....And the only familiar face I saw was Alistair.....Plus at one point in the video he says something along the lines of, "I was beginning to miss killing all the darkspawn".......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

Heh, I really liked him as a tank. Usually a big battle involved my party all dying (even Shale!) and then Alistair killing everything by himself.

---

He always ended up dying on me. All those points I had to add to strength took away from his stamina. With the chaotic fight difficulty my dog was often the only one left. He didn't need to the strength so was the healthiest.

I really don't like how the dog character joined a non-human noble party. It seemed too contrived but made great sense if you started off as a human noble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I really don't like how the dog character joined a non-human noble party. It seemed too contrived but made great sense if you started off as a human noble.

---

I played a human noble, how does the dog join if you play as something else? I liked the dog, and used him a lot until I got other warrior NPCs. If Alistair can't join my party in the expansion, hopefully I can have Oghren. I kept him in my party because he was so amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

I played a human noble, how does the dog join if you play as something else? I liked the dog, and used him a lot until I got other warrior NPCs. If Alistair can't join my party in the expansion, hopefully I can have Oghren. I kept him in my party because he was so amusing.

---

You remember when your greywarden companions hears about the quest about the sick dogs and recommends you take back the leaves? When you are not a Human Noble, you pick up the quest directly from the hound keeper, and you get to see this sick dog, and you can assist him by getting him the leaves. Once you done the quest and gave the leaves, the man and the dog thanks you. After when you fought those darkspawn, and get saved by Flemmeth, and head off with Alistaire and Morrigan, you stop at one of those incidences and a bunch of Dark Spawn attack you, and the dog joins in the help save the day. Then after killing them, you can keep the dog and name him, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

I played a human noble, how does the dog join if you play as something else? I liked the dog, and used him a lot until I got other warrior NPCs. If Alistair can't join my party in the expansion, hopefully I can have Oghren. I kept him in my party because he was so amusing.

---

All warriors characters are complete rubbish AFAIK. Orghren and Sten don't dish out half the damages of a mage or of a rogue. Too slow, too quickly out of stamina. My level 8 rogue's already better than my level 20 Sten from the previous playthrough.

As for Alistair, he's simply subpar when compared to Shale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

All warriors characters are complete rubbish AFAIK. Orghren and Sten don't dish out half the damages of a mage or of a rogue. Too slow, too quickly out of stamina. My level 8 rogue's already better than my level 20 Sten from the previous playthrough.

---

So true. Get a rogue in light armor with daggers and quick strike, or whatever that skill is called, and a few ways to stun the opponent, and the rogue is sooo powerful.

Put the dwarf in heavy armor with a two-handed weapon and the rogue can get in half a dozen strikes in the time it takes the dwarf to miss with one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

All warriors characters are complete rubbish AFAIK. Orghren and Sten don't dish out half the damages of a mage or of a rogue. Too slow, too quickly out of stamina. My level 8 rogue's already better than my level 20 Sten from the previous playthrough.

---

Warriors in this game are not there for causing maximum damage. Similar to other party-based games like WoW, they're for attracting and holding aggro, and surviving while the other party members do the damage. If a warrior in heavy plate could cause the kind of damage an offense-spec'd mage or a rogue could do, there wouldn't be any reason to play the other classes. It's a defensive, crowd control class.

I never had a problem with Alastair or other tanks dying too soon, as long as I had either A) lots of health pots in inventory and the tactics set for warriors to drink 'em, or B) Wynne in the party as a healer.

And yeah... Shale is the ultimate hybrid tank/damage dealer, but I enjoyed my second playthrough with Alistair instead of Shale, mainly because I could actually use the heavy armor and weapons in the game that were useless with Shale as a tank.

I beg to disagree. A two handed warrior in good quality medium armour with more points in willpower and constitution than strength can deal amazing amounts of damage.
Two handed weapons are specifically for damage dealing. Had the warrior meant to be played simply as a tank a shield would have sufficed.
Accessorising the warrior properly is important though, rings and pendants which improve physical resistance/defense or increase strength etc....

Edit: A warrior in massive armour though, that is useless for damage dealing, and only serves the function of a tank.......kind of senseless that king Cailan was shown carrying that big sword and wearing big armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

I beg to disagree. A two handed warrior in good quality medium armour with more points in willpower and constitution than strength can deal amazing amounts of damage.

---

You sure that is correct?

:yes: First character I played was a two handed warrior.....
Lower strength means that normal damage is low, but high willpower means that you can use the talents again and again.....Plus there are quite a few trinkets in game that increase strength.....

Ofcourse one needs to have access to the nice talents so that means that in the lower levels it's not all that good.....But in the later part of the game with higher tier armour and stuff two handed warrior is pretty good.

BTW is there any way to create a stamina potion using deep mushrooms?

I play at normal difficulty level by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

:yes: First character I played was a two handed warrior.....
Lower strength means that normal damage is low, but high willpower means that you can use the talents again and again.....Plus there are quite a few trinkets in game that increase strength.....

---

Hah, I did as well, but I literially piled everything into Strength.

Though, I got to the point where I wore Massive Armour for the looks, as I was that powerful, along with doing similar with all my characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Warriors in this game are not there for causing maximum damage. Similar to other party-based games like WoW, they're for attracting and holding aggro, and surviving while the other party members do the damage. If a warrior in heavy plate could cause the kind of damage an offense-spec'd mage or a rogue could do, there wouldn't be any reason to play the other classes. It's a defensive, crowd control class.

I never had a problem with Alastair or other tanks dying too soon, as long as I had either A) lots of health pots in inventory and the tactics set for warriors to drink 'em, or B) Wynne in the party as a healer.

And yeah... Shale is the ultimate hybrid tank/damage dealer, but I enjoyed my second playthrough with Alistair instead of Shale, mainly because I could actually use the heavy armor and weapons in the game that were useless with Shale as a tank.

---

Huh, simply no. Sword and shield warriors (such as Alistair) are meant to be played as tanks, true. But dual weilding or two handed warriors are meant as DPS class. They actually have less crowd control than a rogue, and if you play them right, they won't wear a heavy armor anyway.

Oghren and Sten are the worst characters in game. Low DPS, low survavibility, slow attack, high miss rates... A full Dex rogue can tank much better than them (by avoiding litterally all attacks), will dish out way more DPS (thanks to Momentum and backstabs) and provide more utility if needed (disarming traps, unlocking chests). Heck, even ranged Leliana is more effective than them once she gets the right talents (but a warrior could get those too). And I'm not even talking about Mages, who are so overpowered it's not even funny.
Dual wielding warriors aren't nearly as bad as two handed ones, but are still nowhere near as good as a DPS mage or a rogue.

To be honest, I think DA:O gameplay and game balance are subpar. Some mecanics are so overpowered it looks like none has tested them before release. That doesn't make the game bad, but sometimes you look at stuff and you're like "Wow, how comes no one realized chaining mana pots is retard?".

What is amazing is how you are saying rogues are better than warriors and that is only because of patches. They used to hit for nothing and required a large investment in hit to get any damage out of them.

Mages are really powerful though, no one can deny that. Though you do need a tank as otherwise, they can tend to be squishy (unless you go arcane warrior, then that imba just flies out the window)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Huh, simply no. Sword and shield warriors (such as Alistair) are meant to be played as tanks, true. But dual weilding or two handed warriors are meant as DPS class. They actually have less crowd control than a rogue, and if you play them right, they won't wear a heavy armor anyway.

Oghren and Sten are the worst characters in game. Low DPS, low survavibility, slow attack, high miss rates... A full Dex rogue can tank much better than them (by avoiding litterally all attacks), will dish out way more DPS (thanks to Momentum and backstabs) and provide more utility if needed (disarming traps, unlocking chests). Heck, even ranged Leliana is more effective than them once she gets the right talents (but a warrior could get those too). And I'm not even talking about Mages, who are so overpowered it's not even funny.
Dual wielding warriors aren't nearly as bad as two handed ones, but are still nowhere near as good as a DPS mage or a rogue.

To be honest, I think DA:O gameplay and game balance are subpar. Some mecanics are so overpowered it looks like none has tested them before release. That doesn't make the game bad, but sometimes you look at stuff and you're like "Wow, how comes no one realized chaining mana pots is retard?".

---

An excellent observation that matches my own.

In Neverwinter Nights I was able to create a “stand alone” dual-wielding rogue. Each rapier had a 50% chance of inflicting a critical hit, high dex increased attack and defense despite being “unarmored,” and he could disengage or selectively engage opponents almost at will. You can essentially do the same thing in DA:O. It works well for rogues and mages but the more traditional fighters are at a distinct disadvantage. Not to mention that the extensive dialogues favor someone who can thrust and parry with just his tongue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

What is amazing is how you are saying rogues are better than warriors and that is only because of patches. They used to hit for nothing and required a large investment in hit to get any damage out of them.

Mages are really powerful though, no one can deny that. Though you do need a tank as otherwise, they can tend to be squishy (unless you go arcane warrior, then that imba just flies out the window)

---

Did you play an arcane warrior? If so how did you like it? If I make a second character, I was going to do a mage. TinCow went blood mage/spirit healer, but I'm curious about the combat mode for the arcane warrior. Does it work ok, or is the only point of the class to be able to wear armor instead of robes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

Did you play an arcane warrior? If so how did you like it? If I make a second character, I was going to do a mage. TinCow went blood mage/spirit healer, but I'm curious about the combat mode for the arcane warrior. Does it work ok, or is the only point of the class to be able to wear armor instead of robes?

---

I'm interested in this as well. If I ever get around to it I'll reengage my arcane warrior character. Right now it doesn't seem as satisfying as a rogue, especially early on.

For those who haven't read the Calling, here's a link to some backstory about the Architect.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Architect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

Did you play an arcane warrior? If so how did you like it? If I make a second character, I was going to do a mage. TinCow went blood mage/spirit healer, but I'm curious about the combat mode for the arcane warrior. Does it work ok, or is the only point of the class to be able to wear armor instead of robes?

---

If you play it as a regular mage, it's pretty bad. But if you play it as a tank, it's quite okay, though it lacks some kind of taunt.
It's also the best class if you want to solo the game. After a certain level, and with good weapons, it becomes unkillable (dodge everything, auto-heal during fight). Check youtube, there are videos of arcane warriors soloing the Dragons, Xiakkang or Loghain's sidekick without taking any damage on nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

though it lacks some kind of taunt.

---

Lack of taunts? Are you playing the same class as I am? The Arcane Warrior is nothing short of a walking neon sign reading "ATTACK ME!" A single, well placed Fireball or Blood Wound will taunt better than any of the Warrior talents.

With the right sustainable buffs, you can out-tank Carth... er, I mean Alistair. Four words: Combat Magic, Shimmering Shield. If that wasn't enough, try Rock Armor, Arcane Shield, Miasma, and Spell Wisp.

Want damage out the rear? Combat Magic, Spell Wisp, Frost Weapons, Flame Weapons, Telekinetic Weapons, and Haste. That's not including all the really nice damage spells like Blood Wound and Fireball.
A special note about the X Weapons spells: You can only have one active per mage at a time, so grab Telekinetic Weapons for your main character (you'll love it for the boss battles), and put Frost/Flame Weapons on your other two mages. Frost Weapons is an iffy one, since you'll face a good amount of shades and revenants in the game, all of whom are ice immune, but it works wonders against dragons.

Properly built and played, the Arcane Warrior is the most overpowered class in the game, especially when paired with Blood Mage and the Warden's Keep talents.

I'm going to knock this one down a few notches on my overall opinion - it does not replay that well. I left nearly two months between finishing the first run and seriously starting my second so that the second run would feel a bit fresher. Now I'm midway through and there are too many places I didn't want to see again, and too many gameplay choices which feel like they are very weighted in one direction. The plot itself doesn't come off any better.

The game needs better dungeon design, more varied and balanced skill choices, and a better spread of talents in party NPCs.

On the other hand my elven duel wielding rogue is far more dangerous than my mage ever was. I'm breezing through the situatuions which caused difficulty with my mage, doing more damage, and having far more fun. When playing a melee class the control issues I had with my mage melted away. I think to play a mage with full effectiveness you need to be using the PC version.

I still like the characters, and I still like the combat gameplay overall due to the challenge level.

My local library had the two tie-in novels so I borrowed them out of curiosity. Not expecting anything much from them but they might fill in some interesting detail. It's not like it will take more more than a day to read the pair so there's nothing to lose :shrug:

Can't fully explain it, but playing DAO has convinced me not to buy Mass Effect 2. Something's gone off in the Bioware formula.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Can't fully explain it, but playing DAO has convinced me not to buy Mass Effect 2. Something's gone off in the Bioware formula.

---

I really hope not! I was always pinning more on ME2 than DAO...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

I'm going to knock this one down a few notches on my overall opinion - it does not replay that well. I left nearly two months between finishing the first run and seriously starting my second so that the second run would feel a bit fresher. Now I'm midway through and there are too many places I didn't want to see again, and too many gameplay choices which feel like they are very weighted in one direction. The plot itself doesn't come off any better.

The game needs better dungeon design, more varied and balanced skill choices, and a better spread of talents in party NPCs.

On the other hand my elven duel wielding rogue is far more dangerous than my mage ever was. I'm breezing through the situatuions which caused difficulty with my mage, doing more damage, and having far more fun. When playing a melee class the control issues I had with my mage melted away. I think to play a mage with full effectiveness you need to be using the PC version.

I still like the characters, and I still like the combat gameplay overall due to the challenge level.

My local library had the two tie-in novels so I borrowed them out of curiosity. Not expecting anything much from them but they might fill in some interesting detail. It's not like it will take more more than a day to read the pair so there's nothing to lose :shrug:

---

Same here. I'm halfway through my second playthrough. My rogue (Dex 2*daggers) is indeed vastly better than my mage ever was, but even though I'm doing an "evil" playthrough, the game's mostly the same anyway. Maybe things will change once I get Loghain, but the plot almost ends by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Something's gone off in the Bioware formula.

---

Indeed it has. They decided to finally make a great RPG for the first time since Shadows of Amn to close out the decade. A shocking twist indeed.

If only they hadn't made it so that mages were that much better than everyone else, though. Sure, you technically don't need them, but they are powerful to the point of ridiculousness. As noted, Arcane Warriors trivialize the hardest difficulty. And if you are playing on lower difficulties? Why bother bring the rest of the party! I don't like mages for this reason, it feels like cheating.

The core mechanics, on the other hand, are superb. Fluid controls, good camera, great UI. You'd never know its not a PC exclusive. The ease of control and fun of executing strategy puts garbage like NWN 2 to shame. This is the first time I've played a fully 3d party based RPG that at no time made me wish it was on a 2d engine instead. You never have to fight the controls or the camera. Its also quite challenging unless you abuse mages, which is a break from Bioware's recent fare. All they need to do is balance the next Dragon Age title.

Its not the perfect game that BG 2 was, but its more than I expected and a huge step in the right direction. Fun combat in a Bioware game? More likely than you think. With a class rebalance, more dungeons, and more sidequests in a sequel, it can hopefully only get better.

edit: just as a note, for the love of god, play the PC version. The console version has bad graphics, toned down encounters, and poor control. I'm not normally someone who really cares, I bought Fallout 3 on console so I could kick back and play with the gamepad, but Dragon Age, or any tactical game, is the sort of the thing you don't want to be playing on console.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Can't fully explain it, but playing DAO has convinced me not to buy Mass Effect 2. Something's gone off in the Bioware formula.

---

It's another team that is making Mass Effect 2, so it might be good to figure out what you find is off in your opinion, as it doesn't need to be existing in ME2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

I'm going to knock this one down a few notches on my overall opinion - it does not replay that well. I left nearly two months between finishing the first run and seriously starting my second so that the second run would feel a bit fresher. Now I'm midway through and there are too many places I didn't want to see again, and too many gameplay choices which feel like they are very weighted in one direction. The plot itself doesn't come off any better.

The game needs better dungeon design, more varied and balanced skill choices, and a better spread of talents in party NPCs.

On the other hand my elven duel wielding rogue is far more dangerous than my mage ever was. I'm breezing through the situatuions which caused difficulty with my mage, doing more damage, and having far more fun. When playing a melee class the control issues I had with my mage melted away. I think to play a mage with full effectiveness you need to be using the PC version.

...

---

I agree with your assessment.

Mages have a lot of power but rogues have greater potential, ability, and individual effectiveness. I'm sure arcane warriors are great but what can you do when I disappear in front of you and then steal your purse from behind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisruptorX

for the love of god, play the PC version. .

---

Swapping versions wouldn't fix any of the real issues, only the more superficial ones that were more immediately noticable in my mage playthrough. The thought of slogging a third time through the overly lengthy tunnel dungeons of Orzamar, and the tunnel dungeon in the Elven ruin, and the annoying to traverse tunnel dungeon with sky for ceiling that is the second half of the Elven forest, and the tunnel dungeon with trippy effects that is the fade, and the tunnel dungeon in a circle that is the mage tower, and the tunnel dungeon of the dragon layer, and ... Ugh!

Yes, I really, really hate these corridor obsessed area designs! Especially ones with such drab visuals and plodding "Go the long way just because" design. What is it with modern RPGs and creating more confined spaces than their predecessors? Why are more open and free areas like the Kokari Wilds or the first area of the forest so rare in modern RPGS? I was tired of it by Oblivion, sick to death of it by Fallout 3, and by Dragon Age the mere thought of a tunnel dungeon fills me with loathing. :thinks longingly of the open spaces of Baldur's Gate:

EDIT: Here, an overworld map of Baldur's Gate which displays maps of each main area. Look at all that open space where you are free to wander about as you will! That made the tunnel dungeons feel like a change of pace and something special. Since the advent of 3D RPGs even the outdoor areas have been closer to corridors than spaces.

frogbeastegg, your post makes me want to play Morrowind again. I loved that game so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

frogbeastegg, your post makes me want to play Morrowind again. I loved that game so much.

---

Agreed. Perhaps the cost of modern, realistic game design limits their openness. Most people are confined enough in their daily lives that they don't want to pay for the pleasure of being forced down another hallway. (Another rogue plug) Openness allows you to exercise a little creative thought as you go about solving a particular meat and bone problem. The wilds were a fun area and some areas were quite tricky if your party didn't have a long range punch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Yes, I really, really hate these corridor obsessed area designs! Especially ones with such drab visuals and plodding "Go the long way just because" design. What is it with modern RPGs and creating more confined spaces than their predecessors? Why are more open and free areas like the Kokari Wilds or the first area of the forest so rare in modern RPGS? I was tired of it by Oblivion, sick to death of it by Fallout 3, and by Dragon Age the mere thought of a tunnel dungeon fills me with loathing. :thinks longingly of the open spaces of Baldur's Gate:

---

True. BG 2 didn't have any of those areas, though. And you are forgetting how absolutely atrocious the dungeons in BG 1 were, due to the pathfinding and characters blocking each other. BG 1 had a good number of dungeons. And BG 2 was mostly dungeons, and fantastic.

Now, I love BG 1, and would love to see more games with great open areas to explore. I didn't really like the open area battles that do exist in Dragon Age, though, since you can't chokepoint.

Also, in BG 1 and 2, you had to trudge around to discover those areas. Better role-playing yes, but some times arduous. Then again, the fact you can't fast travel out of a dungeon in DAO is simply a pain in the :daisy:.

Thing is, BG2 had a lot of "loose" content which is probably not seen as "concentrated" enough with narrative and action. I have never been that enthused with DAO's plot, it's almost too brash and obvious. BG wasn't neccessarily subtle but it was deeper I felt (it could just be that i was more impressionable when I played BG1 and 2).

I certainly can't face even a 2nd play through of DAO, the length of those dungeons is too great and too repetitive.

The silly pantomine-style hyper-gothic full plate armour is far too much for me (what is going on with those pauldrons????). Plus, not having played an MMO ever (i can't be the only one, surely!?), the whole combat system with "tanks", "dps" and "agro" is farcical, naf and too constricting for me.

/walking stick waving rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisruptorX

And you are forgetting how absolutely atrocious the dungeons in BG 1 were, due to the pathfinding and characters blocking each other.

---

No, I'm not forgetting anything. In the depths of dark and stormy nights, unbeknownst to my waking mind I probably have nightmares about a group of adventures clanking about in armour, struggling to line up in a simple 2 rank formation as the phrase "You must gather your party before venturing forth." endlessly loops.

In fact BG might have been the very first stirrings of what grew into my dislike for tunnel dungeons. I didn't enjoy the dungeons in BGII much either; my fonder memories of the game are all linked to plot, character, or the freeform wonder of exploring areas like the starting city and taking on subquests. My general dislike of the dungeon crawling aspect of the BG series is the reason I didn't like Icewind Dale much. An entire game full of tunnel dungeons, gah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alh_p

Plus, not having played an MMO ever (i can't be the only one, surely!?)

---

You are not alone.

The dungeon is kind of the RPG genre's thing. That, and dragons. Now, no doubt you can have a good RPG with no dungeons. Well, thats theoretical, I don't think I've ever played one.

What I wonder is if a game like Baldur's Gate would seem as open if it were in 3d and you could actually view the whole zone, rather than a tiny (especially in default 640x480) box of the whole. If it actually seemed as big, that'd be fantastic, but even Oblivion felt tiny. That could just be one of the many(many, many, etc) faults of Oblivion itself though. The whole map is a giant basin, so you can always see the entirety of the province.

I don't think the difference between BG and DAO is the 3d.

In BG, you could walk around in any given region (except for the dungeons, yes). I later games (KoToR, ICWD, NWN), you always have to follow a godamm road between two hills/two forests/two walls.

Even the most open areas of NWN2 (the forest in MotB) or DAO (the forest too) feel that way. You have a road, and you follow it. The limits around the road are just a bit farther than usual.

Now, I know most people here don't like MMO's, and especially hate WoW, but at least in WoW, you could run around and explore for real. Even without going to the most hidden places (the Troll village near Auberdine, Mount Hyjal, etc.), you could still go back to a province and find a place you've never seen before: a cavern of some sort, an abandonned village, a few easter eggs, etc.

My lexicon has two varieties of dungeon. Tunnel dungeons, which I loathe, and dungeons, which I do not.

Tunnel dungeons are the ones which are designed like a tedious, half hearted maze of corridors without much thought other than "We need to take up a bunch of space." and "The player should have to slog their way around most of it." Think of areas like the Deep Roads, any sewer map, any mine map, Fallout 3's and Oblivion's underground areas. They are dull to explore, visually dull, limited in gameplay (the whole chokepoint mechanic is all you really get to use in tactics), predictable, and entirely over-prevalent across the genre.

Dungeons are much better, and rather a scarce creature in games. A dungeon without 'tunnel' stapled in front of it is an enclosed area primarily designed for combat and exploration/looting which does not take the form of a wannabe rat maze. Dungeons like the D'Arnise keep in BGII are more enjoyable to explore, and tend to be more interesting as actual areas.

Although my two sets of examples seem to split the difference along whether an area is a building or not, building are not immune from being tunnel dungeons. The mage tower in DA:O is an excellent example of a building that's a tunnel dungeon: limited exploration, only one path, and loads of walking the long way around because a designer saw fit to make a door impassable while fighting off the same couple of creatures in the same scenery for floor after floor until you want to scream.

Fallout 3 demonstrated the difference quite well. It had a few hundred tunnel dungeons ... and it had the various big factories, the library, the museum and others.




I think BG in 3D might retain some of that open feeling, since deep down it's a case of open and free by comparison. If a 50x50 map is entirely open for you to walk where you wish it feels more open than a 100x100 map that is made up of glorified corridors.


Edit since this went up as I was typing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

You have a road, and you follow it. The limits around the road are just a bit farther than usual.

---

Yes, that's it exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I don't think the difference between BG and DAO is the 3d.

In BG, you could walk around in any given region (except for the dungeons, yes). I later games (KoToR, ICWD, NWN), you always have to follow a godamm road between two hills/two forests/two walls.

Even the most open areas of NWN2 (the forest in MotB) or DAO (the forest too) feel that way. You have a road, and you follow it. The limits around the road are just a bit farther than usual.

---

Well, that has much do to with the fact that all of those post BG games are poorly and lazily designed and are overall mediocre games. Dragon Age still has much of that design in it. I rate it highly because I think the combat is really fun, due to the ease of control I spoke of earlier and the challenging fights (mage abuse aside). Dragon Age plays like a great RPG, even if its overall level design is like kotor et al.

I agree with both you and frog that the level design in Dragon Age is not perfect, I am simply pleased by the gameplay and consider that a higher priority. This marks the first time since the BG games that Bioware seems to have put any thought into including a combat system that is any way strategic and I like that. Sure, its abusable, but whatever, so was BG, and how.

Unfortunately, from what I have heard, and which Bioware employees seem to corroborate, is that we will never see another Baldur's Gate 2 from Bioware. It was too hard to make, in terms of effort. :thumbsdown:

I like open RPGs too. My favourite RPG after the 2 Baldur's Gate games is SSI's Shattered Lands, which has interesting dungeons and interesting non-dungeon locations. Its also not nearly to the same scale as Baldur's Gate 2, which is rather unique in how immense it is. I don't think its really fair to hold all RPGs up to BG 2, as it is the finest game in the entire genre. That doesn't mean that one should tolerate messes like NWN 2, of course, but Dragon Age is clearly superior to that game in every category, and does all the things that previous 3d party based RPGs have messed up right, such as smooth controls, good cameras, UI that doesn't get in the way, etc.

I wonder if there's enough people here to get an RPG replay thread going? Play through some of the older - and maybe not so old - games and post opinions on how well they hold up.



NWN2 became a very good game with its two expansions and various patches. The original release was absolutely dire though, I agree. NWN1 on the other hand, ugh. Only Jade Empire keeps it from being the worst Bioware game.

Bioware have grown quite complacent. They found a formula with KOTOR and have been rehashing it in various shapes for years now. Prologue -> first real area -> crisis plot point -> choose the order to play these 3 or 4 overarching areas in -> bit where bad things happen when one area out of the overarching selection is left and/or the major plot tiwst takes place -> 'surprise' area where you do a load of fighting -> finale. Each of the overarching areas will have at least one big dungeon area, two clear cut good and evil sides which you need to choose between, and some kind of big boss battle. Meanwhile, for your party, there's the romanceable noble, drippy male character with a tragic past, the romanceable innocent female, the romancable more experienced female, the hulking and gruff warrior with a hidden soft side, the comedy character, the wise old man/woman, and the bundle of under-developed tag-alongs. There's a 50% chance that you will be captured at some point in the game and have to escape. There's a 25% chance one NPC will betray you. You will always hit the level cap before the end game if you explore even a bit. And so on.

I loved KOTOR. I'm tired of playing it's base formula in different skins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

I wonder if there's enough people here to get an RPG replay thread going? Play through some of the older - and maybe not so old - games and post opinions on how well they hold up.



NWN2 became a very good game with its two expansions and various patches. The original release was absolutely dire though, I agree. NWN1 on the other hand, ugh. Only Jade Empire keeps it from being the worst Bioware game.

Bioware have grown quite complacent. They found a formula with KOTOR and have been rehashing it in various shapes for years now. Prologue -> first real area -> crisis plot point -> choose the order to play these 3 or 4 overarching areas in -> bit where bad things happen when one area out of the overarching selection is left and/or the major plot tiwst takes place -> 'surprise' area where you do a load of fighting -> finale. Each of the overarching areas will have at least one big dungeon area, two clear cut good and evil sides which you need to choose between, and some kind of big boss battle. Meanwhile, for your party, there's the romanceable noble, drippy male character with a tragic past, the romanceable innocent female, the romancable more experienced female, the hulking and gruff warrior with a hidden soft side, the comedy character, the wise old man/woman, and the bundle of under-developed tag-alongs. There's a 50% chance that you will be captured at some point in the game and have to escape. There's a 25% chance one NPC will betray you. You will always hit the level cap before the end game if you explore even a bit. And so on.

I loved KOTOR. I'm tired of playing it's base formula in different skins.

---

Hey, if Baldur's Gate 2 is made available on gog.com you can always try a 6-player Coop if possible...if it is possible over the net. Remember we tried it over LAN when it came out, but unfortunately it was during the Counter-Strike craze so we ended up playing Counter-Strike instead.

As for Bioware becoming complacent...I agree, but they found a formula which gives them profits, so from a business perspective so they must think "why change it?" I just hope they don't go Activision though, which a part of me fears with Mass Effect series. Although seeing how they have problems getting Return to Ostagar out for Dragon Age, maybe there wont be as many DLCs.

As for dungeons VS open-world, yeah that was one point with Dragon Age I disliked. Fallout 3 was also tunnelish, but at least they gave the impression it was open enough. Morrowind though is my favourite "open world" game. World of Warcraft too, but there were some "tunnel issues" there too, notably the numerous mountains & hills separating zones, making it only possible to leave or enter through select areas.

I'd like a game with a story like a Bioware RPG, with an open world like Morrowind....

The one thing I don't like in the Bioware formula is that the actual 'accessible' game world is very small.

Still, as long as they keep writing the stories and dialogues nicely, I'll be getting the games. Granted that it's getting repetitive but still there aren't many RPG that are half as good. I mean in the recent years, IMO there were hardly any RPGs that were brought anything new and noteworthy to the genre.....The Witcher was one, then there was Mount&Blade.....the rest were more or less average.....DA:O, stands, well above the average ones at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

Still, as long as they keep writing the stories and dialogues nicely, I'll be getting the games. Granted that it's getting repetitive but still there aren't many RPG that are half as good. I mean in the recent years, IMO there were hardly any RPGs that were brought anything new and noteworthy to the genre.....The Witcher was one, then there was Mount&Blade.....the rest were more or less average.....DA:O, stands, well above the average ones at least.

---

I think VtM: Bloodlines did the action-RPG sub-genre perfectly, better than Mass Effect even, though I loved Mass Effect's retro sci-fi aesthetics.

As for Baldur's Gate multiplayer...it honestly isn't that much fun. There's a number of little things that combine to make it irritating. Firstly, the game pauses during dialogue. This happens more than you would think. Secondly, each player wants to pause during combat, so the more players you have, the more pausing. Thirdly, both games are pretty tough, and quickload isn't so quick in MP. You can play it on virtual LAN over Hamachi, though, done it once or twice. As much as I like the game, it doesn't work as well as an RPG designed from the ground up for MP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisruptorX

I think VtM: Bloodlines did the action-RPG sub-genre perfectly, better than Mass Effect even, though I loved Mass Effect's retro sci-fi aesthetics.

---

I loved that game! It's a shame they didn't make more. Maybe they will now that vampires (although wussified) are popular right now. Or did the company who made it go under?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

I loved that [Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines]! It's a shame they didn't make more. [...] Or did the company who made it go under?

---

That would be Troika Games, and it's thoroughly deceased. Shame really, since both Arcanum and VtM:Bloodlines had the potential to be true groundbreakers, were they not rushed, buggy, etc.

There's great fan-based mods and patches for VtM:Bloodlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

I loved that game! It's a shame they didn't make more. Maybe they will now that vampires (although wussified) are popular right now. Or did the company who made it go under?

---

I know you mean about twilight, but you haven't seen what the Japanese are currently doing with Vampires. Let's say it is very taboo in Western Culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That would be Troika Games, and it's thoroughly deceased. Shame really, since both Arcanum and VtM:Bloodlines had the potential to be true groundbreakers, were they not rushed, buggy, etc.

---

That's unfortunate.

I agree. Although I could never bring myself to play an "evil" vampire the game itself was remarkable and an incredible journey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

I wonder if there's enough people here to get an RPG replay thread going? Play through some of the older - and maybe not so old - games and post opinions on how well they hold up.

---

Perhaps there will be interest this summer. I remember my attempt to play through the entire BG series again, only solo. I went through a lot of preparation, repurchasing, and modification only to play the game and realize how alone I felt during play. Perhaps that's a result of getting older :shrug: .

Instead of a book club it would be like a game club. Each player can add their own twists and relate the adventure making it feel like a story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I know you mean about twilight, but you haven't seen what the Japanese are currently doing with Vampires. Let's say it is very taboo in Western Culture.

---

Huh man, you've obviously never watched a vampire porn movie.
Just for your information, the first modern vampire novel (Carmilla) is about a more or less openly lesbian vampire. It's been written by an Irish, in...1872. 25 years later Dracula followed the same path, with some quite erotical scenes (such as Jonathan Harker being blood-sucked to exhaustion by 3 vampire babes).
Nowadays, we have Anne Rice's books. Most of them have homosexual and bisexual sex scenes, involving two or often more characters, with some of them being barely legal (as in being immortal but looking like 14 year old teens). Tbh I found some of these books quite disturbing and unappealing.
Vampire is also a quite fashionable theme within the fetishist and gothic subcultures.

Japanese vampires are lame, just like pretty much anything comming from japanese pop culture. Gross and silly at the same time, full of clichés, weak plots, and what not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That would be Troika Games, and it's thoroughly deceased. Shame really, since both Arcanum and VtM:Bloodlines had the potential to be true groundbreakers, were they not rushed, buggy, etc.

There's great fan-based mods and patches for VtM:Bloodlines.

---

I'm apparently the only person on the planet who found the un-modded, vanilla Bloodlines to be completely playable. A couple glitches, a few CTDs, sure. But, it was never anything close to the unplayable bug-ridden mess most people tell me it was.

I won the game 3x without ever feeling the need for fan-made content or patches. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm apparently the only person on the planet who found the un-modded, vanilla Bloodlines to be completely playable. A couple glitches, a few CTDs, sure. But, it was never anything close to the unplayable bug-ridden mess most people tell me it was.

I won the game 3x without ever feeling the need for fan-made content or patches. :shrug:

---

No, the bugginess is extremely overstated. Its no more buggy than say Fallout 2. Actually, its less buggy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm apparently the only person on the planet who found the un-modded, vanilla Bloodlines to be completely playable. A couple glitches, a few CTDs, sure. But, it was never anything close to the unplayable bug-ridden mess most people tell me it was.

I won the game 3x without ever feeling the need for fan-made content or patches. :shrug:

---

I played through the game at release with no patches, and other than a few minor glitches and some broken triggers in side quests it was all ok. The source engine was a bigger problem - it always makes me terribly motion sick.

I suspect most of the bug issue was the one that could crash your game so you couldn't pass that point, thus being unable to finish the game normally. Then we also have that door that was almost impossible to open or when your computer changes into a furnature.

Still love that game and malkivian playthrough is still among the funniest games ever imho.

"Police officials has gone on record saying: Don't worry that crazy bastard will save him."
"One witness stated that the exchange was all like pow, pow, ah take that, oh you got me, take that, blam, aiee."
Or telling Jack about his plan... Without knowing it.
Among the easier to find we have the pet turtle.

Return to Ostagar has been released, finally.

The pros:
- Some new lore (regarding Cailan and Celene, the orlesian Empress)
- Some new banters (mostly with Wynne, Alistair, Loghain and occasionally Dog)
- It's only 3€

The cons:
- A shameless rehash of Ostagar, with a snow texture and some Darkspawn stuff. There's only one new zone.
- A new plate armor set. Huho, as if the game wasn't already filled with those. During my warrior playthrough, all 4 plate wearing characters had a full set, and I still had 2 or 3 more in my inventory, while I couldn't get any leather or cloth set.
- Cailan's armur is utterly useless. It's made for tanking, but requires a huge amount of strenght that no tank characters is going to reach at any time. Who the hell took care of the itemization?
- The new zones are all corridor-ish, even Ostagar camp.

All in all, I'm kind of disappointed. The lore ain't that exciting. The fights are overly easy. The loot is useless. Not a single new texture or stuff (unlike Stone Prisonner). Oh well. For 3€ I guess I shouldn't have expected anything better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Return to Ostagar has been released, finally.

The pros:
- Some new lore (regarding Cailan and Celene, the orlesian Empress)
- Some new banters (mostly with Wynne, Alistair, Loghain and occasionally Dog)
- It's only 3€

The cons:
- A shameless rehash of Ostagar, with a snow texture and some Darkspawn stuff. There's only one new zone.
- A new plate armor set. Huho, as if the game wasn't already filled with those. During my warrior playthrough, all 4 plate wearing characters had a full set, and I still had 2 or 3 more in my inventory, while I couldn't get any leather or cloth set.
- Cailan's armur is utterly useless. It's made for tanking, but requires a huge amount of strenght that no tank characters is going to reach at any time. Who the hell took care of the itemization?
- The new zones are all corridor-ish, even Ostagar camp.

All in all, I'm kind of disappointed. The lore ain't that exciting. The fights are overly easy. The loot is useless. Not a single new texture or stuff (unlike Stone Prisonner). Oh well. For 3€ I guess I shouldn't have expected anything better.

---

I'll echo that. Took me 20 minutes with listening to dialogue and team-banter.

3 € x 10 = 30 € which is the price of the next Dragon Age expansion.
So that means 20 minutes x 10 then doesn't it? A little over 3 hours of game time in the expansion perhaps? :wink:

This is why DLC are fundamentaly terribad. They can argue about the low prices as much as they want ('it's not even the price of a big mac, come on!'), we're still being ripped off. Poorly designed content that takes 20 minutes and doesn't really add anything to the game = fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I know you mean about twilight, but you haven't seen what the Japanese are currently doing with Vampires. Let's say it is very taboo in Western Culture.

---

You've piqued my curiousity. Too bad I'm at work, there's no way I'm googling about Japanese vampires from here!

After playing Mass Effect 2 the control scheme in DAO feels awkward and unwieldy. I played it previously on PS3 and enjoyed it, but it almost seems unplayable now on PC after being used to ME2 controls. Using a rogue getting into position with mouse clicks involves constantly having to move the camera around and the less said about trying to control it with WASD the better. Perhaps it will get easier when I'm used to it, but I don't really feel like getting used to it will be any fun...

That's how I felt on trying the demo - it didn't feel right at all for me, so I passed on the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

After playing Mass Effect 2 the control scheme in DAO feels awkward and unwieldy. I played it previously on PS3 and enjoyed it, but it almost seems unplayable now on PC after being used to ME2 controls. Using a rogue getting into position with mouse clicks involves constantly having to move the camera around and the less said about trying to control it with WASD the better. Perhaps it will get easier when I'm used to it, but I don't really feel like getting used to it will be any fun...

---

I have no issue with the controls whatsoever *shrugs*
If you zoom out, it plays like a RTS, if you zoom in, it plays like a MMO.

Why don't they make all the games with simple controls like M&B or some TES game I'll never know.....why have the mouse movement thing at all! That's supposed to be for RTS games.

You don't have to use the mouse to play DA:O. WASD is more than enough, unlike MMO's where players who only use WASD will look like morons. I never use the mouse to move my characters in DAO, so *shrugs* again I guess :-P

I seriously don't see what's complicated or tedious or annoying with DA:O controls. Maybe that's because I'm an experienced MMO and RTS player, but I never had any problem at all. To go even further, I think the controls are about as good as you can expect for a party-based RPG. I am no fanboy of the game (I think the gameplay is lacking, and consider there are quite a lot of holes in the story), but DA:O is certainly not shamed by TES games.

Not shamed by any TES game. I agree to that....But I guess since the TES games were one of the first RPGs I ever played, I sort of got stuck to the idea of good RPGs using a mouse to look around and arrow keys to move around, with the LMB used to slash and attack.
No issue with controls, easy enough sure.....just would've liked them better had they been different.

BTW does Return to Ostagar change anything in the main storyline/dialogue or is it just a new area with side story like Warden's Keep?

I never use the mouse to move either, just to loot and change view sometimes....

and yeah return to ostagar is just like warden's keep, a short side quest that gets some powerful items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

Not shamed by any TES game. I agree to that....But I guess since the TES games were one of the first RPGs I ever played, I sort of got stuck to the idea of good RPGs using a mouse to look around and arrow keys to move around, with the LMB used to slash and attack.
No issue with controls, easy enough sure.....just would've liked them better had they been different.

BTW does Return to Ostagar change anything in the main storyline/dialogue or is it just a new area with side story like Warden's Keep?

---

Well, it's more closely tied to the main plot than Warden's Keep, obviously. You learn a few nice things (if you're really interested in the plot).
- First, it seems that the defeat at Ostagar wasn't really Loghain's fault. Apparently, Cailan wasn't as confident as he seems when the player meets him, and actually thought a victory was really unlikely. Knowing that, Loghain's betrayal actually looks like a rational move (as opposed to a lame excuse to create an "evil betrayer" kind of enemy).
- Secondly, it also seems that Cailan was thinking about kicking Anora out to marry Celene I, the Empress of Orlais. Arl Eamon was at least supporting the idea.

The first point is kind of silly to be honest. I mean, we meet a King who seems eager to fight the darkspawn, and who is disappointed cause he thinks it's not a true Blight, but according to RtO, he was actually pretty much convinced victory was impossible. Err, yeah?
Even Duncan seemed somewhate confident that the Blight could be stopped at Ostagar, and now we're being told that it was clear from the very beginning that Ostagar was likely going to be a failure.

There again, I blame poor writting on Bioware's part. I think they didn't have a grand picture of the plot when they started to work on the game, and are changing it as they see fit as time goes. That makes for several contradictions and incoherences throughout the game.

I sorta liked Cailan to be honest, didnt see him as being a bumbling fool just young. I very much disliked Anora though, that woman was a total pain in the arse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Return to Ostogar

---

So it's one big retcon with an hour's play time and some mediocre loot. How very exciting.

Poor Cailen never stood a chance; considering his genetics and mentor it's a wonder he turned out as well as he did. The prequel book showed that his father was a complete inept bumbling idiot, his mother was a robot without an emotional emulation subroutine, and Loghain was a complete and utter prat. Speaking of which, I retract my earlier comments about Loghain's actions not making sense based on his background. They carry on perfectly from the book because he never makes a jot of sense. If anything he's better in the game.

Tip: don't read the books. Unlike the Mass Effect ones, they're awful and add nothing at all except facepalm material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

So it's one big retcon with an hour's play time and some mediocre loot. How very exciting.

Poor Cailen never stood a chance; considering his genetics and mentor it's a wonder he turned out as well as he did. The prequel book showed that his father was a complete inept bumbling idiot, his mother was a robot without an emotional emulation subroutine, and Loghain was a complete and utter prat. Speaking of which, I retract my earlier comments about Loghain's actions not making sense based on his background. They carry on perfectly from the book because he never makes a jot of sense. If anything he's better in the game.

Tip: don't read the books. Unlike the Mass Effect ones, they're awful and add nothing at all except facepalm material.

---

I was half thinking of getting this but reading the comments here I think I will pass I was gonna get summit for the 360 an I fancied an RPG looks like I gotta wait till ME3 or that Alan Wake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Tip: don't read the books. Unlike the Mass Effect ones, they're awful and add nothing at all except facepalm material.

---

Too late, I already read the Stolen Throne and still plan on reading the second one.

Fanboys kill me honestly. If you go by the comments of people on bioware social website, you get the impression that DAO books are the new parangons of fantasy, better than Tolkien, Salvador, Hobb, Martin and Eddings altogether. Then you read the book and you're like :dizzy2:

I nominate Halo books as being the best ever books based off a video game, with splinter cell a close second. (though im not sure of that order)

The second book is better than the first one. In fact I'd read the second one first.
Nowhere near brilliant or anything, but it's OK stuff if you liked the story of the games.
Furthermore, reading the second one will tell a bit about the Architect....which is something to do while one waits for DA:Awakening.

One of the few gripes I had with the first book was that they never clearly mentioned the numbers of the armies save for once.....I mean what is the count of a 'legion' in the Dragon Age world?

hard question because it often depended on the ruler. at the time of constantine he shrunk legions sizes considerably so no one general got too much power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I was half thinking of getting this but reading the comments here I think I will pass I was gonna get summit for the 360 an I fancied an RPG looks like I gotta wait till ME3 or that Alan Wake

---

For all its flaws and disappointments, Dragon Age is still very much worth playing if you like the older school of Bioware RPGs. Just don't expect much from the plot; it's the combat and the party members' dialogue which carry the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Fanboys kill me honestly. If you go by the comments of people on bioware social website, you get the impression that DAO books are the new parangons of fantasy, better than Tolkien, Salvador, Hobb, Martin and Eddings altogether. Then you read the book and you're like :dizzy2:

---

Oh, I don't know. Eddings and Salvador are awful; I thought they were childish, simplistic nonsense when I was 14. Stolen Throne can happily sit beside them. The other three get frog ratings of good but flawed and on a 6 book long downward spiral (Hobb), very good if infuriatingly slow at writing (Martin), and good but better on a re-read and when read more widely than LotR (Tolkien), so yes, the comparisons that way make my mind boggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

One of the few gripes I had with the first book was that they never clearly mentioned the numbers of the armies save for once.....I mean what is the count of a 'legion' in the Dragon Age world?

---

In generic fantasy land legion often means 1,000 soldiers. I took it to be around that number, firstly as DA is generic fantasy, secondly as its world and infrastructure can't cope with massive armies, and thirdly it fits in with the kinds of numbers we saw in the game's major battles.

So, why does the new Dragon Age comic here (called Revelation), have Morrigan and Alistair referring to the Warden as her? That's so biased! I mean one place in the games peripheral stuff where the Warden is actually referenced to and he's a her......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

So, why does the new Dragon Age comic here (called Revelation), have Morrigan and Alistair referring to the Warden as her? That's so biased! I mean one place in the games peripheral stuff where the Warden is actually referenced to and he's a her......

---

Why does the Mass Effect out-of-game material always refer to Shepard as a him? That's so biased!

Why does the KOTOR out-of-game material always refer to you-know-who as a him? That's so biased!

Why does the Jade Empire out-of-game material always refer to the player character as a him? That's so biased!

Why does the Neverwinter Nights out-of-game material always refer to the hero as a him? That's so biased!

Why does the Baldur's Gate series out-of-game material always refer to the Bhaalspawn as a him? That's so biased!

And so on.

Maybe Bioware decided that the sizeable portion of their audience who play as female characters deserved a nod instead of the usual hand wave and 'oops your characters are not real' treatment?

If you don't like it, imagine the word is spelled differently. It's what some of us have had to do for years.

Froggy has caught you now and she is not going to let you go.

I personally dislike actually calling people "him or her" for pretty much that reason, unfortunately, we don't really have the word in the English language which is gender neutral, hence I always say "They".


*Some one is talking about Froggy*
Me: "I think they are a very good moderator." or "I think their posts are a excellent contribution." etc

Unfortunately, when it comes to people with English as a second language and some native English speakers, they are completely confused and think 'frogbeastegg' represents a collective of people who moderate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Wow.....

I'm not a chauvinist all right.......it's just that like you said, most games do have male characters as canon....so guess it felt odd to see a 'her'.

So did not mean to offend the ladies on the Org.