1. To try and main stream it to make it more accessible to a border audience.felbot said:
2. Cost this is EA remember, anything and everything they think they can cut and get away with they will.
Dragon age 3 you will once again be playing as a human
- Thread starter disgruntledgamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
2. Cost this is EA remember, anything and everything they think they can cut and get away with they will.
A lot of studios tracking stats (via achievements) to see who's played what and how. Perhaps they saw who played what races through what origin story, and decided not enough played the other races to justify the work involved?felbot said:
Same goes for the trend in shorter games, I forget where I saw it, but it was like 10% or less ever finished a long RPG.
personally i don't care if it is one race or a dozen. DA:Os story was only really different for the first 30 or so minutes. yes there were different interactions and some different outcomes based on your race but largely the game remains unchanged.disgruntledgamer said:
now i could probably write a full dissertation on all of the mistakes, errors and sheer ineptitude of DA2. however most of that wouldn't fall directly on their choice to focus on a human character as the lead. other games have only offered one choice for their player character and have turned out amazing efforts (Witcher 2 springs to mind).
bottom line: as long as they don't try to pass off another lazy effort like they did with DA2, i will be satisfied.
I find it very hard to summon any enthusiasm for DA3 and that's mostly because of EA's stated goal of killing single player (I know that shouldn't mean there won't be any single player at all, but EA are, quite frankly, stupid enough to attempt that and are making decisive strides in that direction. See ME3's multiplayer that directly influences the single player).
Some might argue that this is Bioware, not EA, but frankly I don't really see a distinction any more. Either Bioware is embracing EA's direction, or they are simply pressured into going along with it... in the end the result is the same.
Some might argue that this is Bioware, not EA, but frankly I don't really see a distinction any more. Either Bioware is embracing EA's direction, or they are simply pressured into going along with it... in the end the result is the same.
i gave up on bioware awhile ago, i've yet to play a good game from them so I'm not getting this regardless.
that said, 'you can only be human' is a major strike against any rpg with more then one NPC race, if there ae other races, you should be able to play as those races, the lack of ability to let the player do so is just lazy
that said, 'you can only be human' is a major strike against any rpg with more then one NPC race, if there ae other races, you should be able to play as those races, the lack of ability to let the player do so is just lazy
How fuckin' creative. And a huge step up from Dragon Age: Origins. I'm so fuckin' glad they decided to keep that awesome fuckin' feature from DA2.
SHHHHH!! if you say his name loud enough, they say you can hear his baseless arguments and pointless bitching.Revnak said:
This is pretty much how I feel. As an extra point I will be waiting for some player feedback on dragon age 3 before even thinking about buying it, rather than preordering it or whatever.Daystar Clarion said:The hyperbole is strong in this thread...
I didn't really like DA2, but I'm willing to give DA3 a shot, since it seems like they've learned from the last game.
This will be Bioware's last chance though, I don't think I can stomach another ME3 ending level of cock up
They can't... they're already on thin ice and that ice is quickly cracking, this is their last chance, they screw this up and they're done.Daystar Clarion said:
...I'm really hoping they don't, I actually rather like Bioware.
Opening comments passed without contest as per request, I won't argue a topic that the other party doesn't want to discuss.kingcom said:
Yes, you're right about how people form arguments, the reason why I write in a manner that dismisses arguments made purely on knee-jerk reactions, prejudice and hyperbole is because this is not okay. An opinion not backed up by facts, research and analysis is not as credible as one that is and should not be treated as such. I'll be the first to admit that I fall into the trap of thinking 'Oh no! Someone is wrong on the internet!' but if someone's opinion is expounded by making statements that are objectively false, understanding why they've come to that conclusion may be helpful in correcting them but it certainly doesn't legitimise it.
I've seen that video before, I remember at the time thinking that some of the points were well made, others were garbage including the point about narrative cohesion breaking down. (the producer doesn't even justify the statement, he just superimposes text and audio to the extent that it sounds like he's making an argument to support the statement but it's just unintelligible noise - and he does this right after dismissing the use of the critical method to refute his argument out of hand) I've redacted a large section here elaborating on the issue which I will post on request, but knowing how heated discussions about the Mass Effect 3 ending can get and how tired of the topic the forum is I'd rather not elaborate unless I must.
Back to 'Dragon Age II': Your justification for the viewpoint that the narrative fails to explain itself is that a lot of people are complaining about it. Based on your statements about the formation of an argument doesn't that make this irrelevant? By your own statements, the complaints may not be based on anything to do with the narrative cohesion. What seems most likely based on your other points is that the text requires a degree of work to be understood, and that people who were not invested in the characters weren't willing to put that work in.
I would argue that the introduction isn't an attempt to get the player to connect with the character, that starts to happen with the arrival at Kirkwall, it's instead an attempt to engage the player through the game-play. More combat happens in the first 10 minutes than in the entire subsequent hour. This is a problem if the player finds the combat lacking in depth, challenge, or any number of other criticisms I've heard levelled at this game any of which are largely subjective and matters of personal taste which doesn't make them flawed but does make them useless for supporting objective statements about the game's quality - which is all I ever set out to refute.
I haven't played a mage in DA2, but from your recount it does sound like it introduces problems. Bethany provides some fairly vital exposition on Hawke's motivations for the Deep Roads expedition - it is desperation as you suggested - and I'd assumed Carver did the same on a mage play-through. Apparently not. As I understand it, Flemeth's appearance was to patch over an apparent contradiction that occurred in the first game which gave the player the option to seemingly kill her and this needed to be written around. (although the same care wasn't given to Leliana which makes this a little doubtful)
For the Qu'nari, they're trying to occupy the city, which it's been strongly implied Hawke is starting to feel some sense of attachment to. Hawk gets to play the hero because everyone else is trying and not doing too well. Depending on what side quests have been done, Hawke may also have won the respect of the Arishok prior to this, making the resolution through single combat more believable, though this point isn't essential.
Concerning the Templars working with a mage, yes, that does appear uncharacteristic no denying it; I can only guess that Meredith was planning to use one of her enemies against the other so she only has to deal with one of them herself. (She considers Hawke her enemy regardless of whether Hawke is a mage or not, the lyrium has made her quite paranoid - in fact in the endings that I've seen the Chantry seeker states that she blames Meredith for the conflict) This does rely on the assumption that she's still capable of rational thought at this point, doubtful.
Lastly - illusion of choice. This observation was made as a response to a specific comment which I had read to imply that the origin stories opened up concrete options further down the line concerning the narrative's direction. I should however have phrased it in a manner that did not imply a general value judgement. As long as the illusion is convincing it is indeed equal to actually being given choice.
I will concede that a mage play-through possibly doesn't make sense because I don't have any personal experience from which to refute it, I will have to do it myself and see if I can keep track of it. Thank you for raising these issues and humouring my wall of text, it has given me quite a lot to think about.
And where is this number coming from? I know a lot of people who play other races, especially the 2ed time through.Jove said:
I'm calling BS on this Bioware has made their reputation on RPGs with choices that matter, a reputation I might add that gets damaged with each new game. It's also what made the Witcher 2 so good.Anthraxus said:
Just to be clear I'm not calling BS on you I'm pretty sure they probably made the statement, the statement however is complete %^&%$, not out of the ordinary for EA tho.
BioWare has been fairly upfront when they are just deciding something because thats what they want to do. They have no real reason to lie about how many people play as other races, so i seriously doubt they are just using it as an excuse.disgruntledgamer said:
It's real easy to think that most people play the way we do, but i have found out time and time again that it is a pretty big mistake.
BioWare has accurate metrics, and they wouldn't be making up excuses when they haven't been shy about saying "well this is our game and this is how we are making it, so tough" in the past.
DA had three races - douchebag, douchebag with green skin, and douchebag with pointy ears.
While it would be nice if they expanded on the races (like adding some more.. and having a shred of difference in them) over the last game and maybe this one, I just don't see the point. They're not going to re-introduce them again. Besides, if there's not a gnome race that is 2 foot tall, and can still have sex-scenes with normal-heighted people, I don't care (y'know.... because that's actually experimentative, and not just EA driving Bioware into the ground).
While it would be nice if they expanded on the races (like adding some more.. and having a shred of difference in them) over the last game and maybe this one, I just don't see the point. They're not going to re-introduce them again. Besides, if there's not a gnome race that is 2 foot tall, and can still have sex-scenes with normal-heighted people, I don't care (y'know.... because that's actually experimentative, and not just EA driving Bioware into the ground).
As I recall, you got to pick your own background story in DA: O, so your argument of that being ripped off of ME rather than sticking to the format of DA: O is just wrong.disgruntledgamer said:
Sooooo what's the point of this thread again? Other than stating something both pointless and wrong?