 
|
Latest Dragon Age Official Forum News Headlines:Dragon Age Forum News IV (Jan. 02, 08) - January 3, 2008, 1:05 am by chevalier Dragon Age Forum News III (Jan. 02, 08) - January 3, 2008, 1:04 am by chevalier Dragon Age Forum News II (Jan. 02, 08) - January 2, 2008, 4:42 pm by chevalier Dragon Age Forum News I (Jan. 02, 08) - January 2, 2008, 4:08 pm by chevalier Dragon Age Forum News III (Nov. 11, 07) - November 11, 2007, 3:11 pm by chevalier Dragon Age Forum News IV (Jan. 02, 08) Posted: January 3, 2008, 1:05 am by chevalier Stanley Woo, QA Ninja Some General Questions About Dragon Age (3) How long has DA been being worked on? Probably five years so far. It's quite a neat world and the story is rather intricate. Motion sickness sensitive: Will I be able to play? I've had that sort of problem with fast-paced games, but Oblivion and a game like BioShock both worked okay. The critical factor was that I was able to mostly move or turn slowly, unlike in games which require a lot of quick movement in narrow corridors. I've learned to accept the over-the-shoulder (ots) viewpoint, and even have coped with the first-person viewpoint if I had to do so, but I'll always be partial to the top-down isometric. That's what I set The Witcher in when I played, and it's a good thing. I tried the ots view and it was incredibly bad; I couldn't handle it for more than a few minutes. A KotOR viewpoint was okay, and I had no problem there. So, if DA offers a view like KotOR, at least, then I should be able to manage fine. I don't expect it to be terribly fast-paced, but I'd love it if there was a top-down isometric choice. Sounds like that's not going to be there, though, so I'll have to deal. Kevin Lynch, Dragon Age would probably be okay for you. more: Errm, ok then, I guess I can’t help you. You do seem to have it on a much more severe scale than some of my friends or Sliphawk, Kevin etc who’ve found some solution to it. Perhaps Stanley Woo may wish to elaborate a bit more on his posts… Cheers I really can't, since my responses are based solely on what I'm interpreting of people's complaints and what I've seen of the camera movement so far. I can neither predict what the final camera system will be like, nor can I accurately gauge individual camera movement tolerances. It's just easier to say than prefacing every response with "Based on a correct interpretation of the accuracy of individual articulation of their subjective problem and assuming the camera movement system remains the same as it does at the moment that I am posting a response..." I don't have a problem with camera movement and have very few problems with motion sickness in FPSs (save for the garish colours in Wolfenstein 3D, which did make me ill). Some people have problems with the camera movement and weapon bob, some with the character animation, and some with the camera focused on a part of the character which moves. more: Possibly; it's way too early to say what options/settings the game will or will not have. And those are some really good suggestions. Many people I know have as large a monitor as they can afford yet are still sitting a metre away from their screen. And then they lean into it when playing. That would make anyone ill, and not just with games. more: No, that's not what I mean. Again, without knowing the precise colour/movement/speed/direction triggers that make individuals uncomfortable with the cameras, I can't really really say for sure. All I can say is that, based on what my friends and family have told me about games they didn't like, and based on my own experiences with those same games, certain movements with Dragon Age's camera, framerate, and movement as they currently exists may mean it is unplayable to those with increased sensitivity to such things. *whew* And you wonder why companies put all those warning and disclaimers on things. Seriously, though, right now the camera stuff is still being worked out, but if they stay the same or very similar to the way they are now, some of you might not enjoy it. Then again, final art, animations, and framerate might help. Or perhaps there are camera settings that offset some of the more severe problems. But I don't know that. You're asking a subjective question now with the information you have at hand, I'm answering a subjective question as best I can with the information I have at hand. Ultimately, you won't know until you play it. Mary Kirby, Writer The Bioware Plot Model [MANY SPOILERS] I am a huge fan of exploration in games. That was what persuaded me to play CRPGs in the first place. However... Why do I want to explore any given rich, detailed world or interact with the people in it? I have found, in my own experiences with games, that the plot is what fuels my interest in the world and even in my party members. The first time I picked up Morrowind, I hated it. I wandered around a few cities and poked my head into a smugglers' cave and promptly got bored. At several friends' insistance, I picked it up again almost a year later and tried playing through the critical path. I fell in love with the island I was on, and the people on it only when I started to explore that story. I played Morrowind to learn more about my character's relationship to Nerevar, Azura, the Tribunal, and Dagoth Ur. When I finished the main plot, I lost all interest in playing further. In BG2, Irenicus was the carrot that lured me through Chapter 2. Jolee has been, quite possibly, my favorite character to date in any game, but I only found him and his stories appealing because they were relevant to me; I knew he was telling me something about myself, that he knew things about me I didn't know. I'm more than willing to accept the idea that there are gamers with tastes and motivations different from mine. But the first task we writers have (whether we're talking games or plain old print fiction) is to persuade the audience that the world we are inviting them to explore is worth their time. A good villain can do that better than almost anything else. Irenicus, or Malak, or Sephiroth, or Dagoth Ur immediately makes the world around me relevant. It is no longer a sea of details that have no meaning to me, personally. I know where my character fits into it, I have an urge to find out what is at stake, I know that if I look around enough, I will find the roots of what caused all this. And now I can go exploring, which is what I love to do. more: Haven't you read The Tick? Protagonists with no villains to thwart wind up needing a lot of therapy. (Though I would definitely be interested in writing a ninja hedge into a game some day... *sigh*) Honestly, the game you're describing here exists. It is The Sims. There are no villains to fight. There are choices to make, and characters with stories of their own to interact with, and there's progress to be made. It is the story of your character and/or characters versus everyday existence, possibly with alien abductions or plagues caused by your pet guinea pig, but you never win. It's a good game. And obviously that model can work. (I really only liked building houses, though.) more: What we're not going to do, what I think nobody who hopes to produce good work should ever do, is take risks just for the sake of being "different," or "edgy." We're as interested in innovation as you are, but to truly be innovative, you need inspiration -- not just a desire to rebell. We'll break the rules when we want to. more: Did I say that they sat around waiting for lightning to strike? No. But that they obviously had an idea and worked to bring it to life? That should be obvious. They were not breaking with traditional forms just because they disliked traditional forms. They did so with a full understanding of what those forms were and how and why they worked, and for a reason. "To be different," is not a reason. Lots of things are different. That doesn't necessarily make them good. Cheese-wiz in my coffee instead of sugar would be different. Pouring my coffee over homemade vanilla ice cream would be different and good. [Add/Comments: 0] - [View Comments/Permalink] - [Top] Posted: January 3, 2008, 1:04 am by chevalier Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, taken from the Dragon Age Official Forum. Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end. David Gaider, Lead Writer Classes ? Actually, no -- stamina would only get used by employing special attacks and abilities. You can indeed swing your sword all day in regular fashion (if not dramatic). Dressing up and dressing down There are a couple of quests that I can think of where you have the option to disguise yourself in an outfit, but no "formal attire only" tea parties that I can think of (though that's a neat idea). As for armor, there are indeed different types and variances within each. Whether one is prettier or more stylish than the other-- I guess that will be subjective. There is also regular clothing if you want to put it on, but wearing armor certainly isn't out of place in this environment. Arena The dwarves use arenas as a method of clan distinguishment and bloodsport entertainment -- they call them Provings (and the arena itself is a Proving Ground). more: Sounds cool. Can non-dwarves participate in provings? Only the regular ones -- the ones meant to entertain the bloodthirsty masses. more: While the Proving Grounds can be a means to an end, I don't think there's any point at which you are forced to compete. more: Would you miss content? *ponder* I suppose you might decide to go to the Proving Grounds just to see what it's like. It's less a side quest, however, and more of an optional activity -- not UCW optional, perhaps, but optional nevertheless. If you decide to act out of character so you can go Prove your worth, don't blame me. Why is it so difficult to end a game well? [MANY SPOILERS] Well, let me say this: the more linear the story, the better you're likely going to be able to wrap it up neatly. Which is to say if you know exactly who your protaganist is, and you know exactly what your plot is going to encompass and when your climax is going to occur, it's going to be a bit easier to bring it all together to make what will likely be at the very least an appropriate ending (though naturally tastes vary and it may not be an ending you like, much). Add in such complications as a variable protaganist or an open-ended plot and things become much more difficult. You can never quite anticipate what the player's story was (meaning what they experienced as their personal narrative throughout the game) so wrapping it up in a way that will be satisfying specifically for them becomes more challenging. I do like the Fallout method (if you want to call it that) -- we used it in Throne of Bhaal and in Hordes of the Underdark, as I recall. The thing there is that it's not so much an ending for the player's character as it is an ending for every other character and/or place in the game, right? And since I know exactly what those things are about for certain, I can give them an ending that is appropriate. It certainly doesn't help that, in most cases, we tend to work on the ending last. Which is to say we usually end up working on the game's ending in a period where we might not have time to do it justice. I would say that maybe we should do it first (or earlier) but then I think of all the times when we have had to radically change things in the story due to outside pressures (like an axed cutscene or some change to the engine) and I wonder how viable that kind of plan would be. You'd think that the needs of the story would dictate everything else in the game-- but no. Alas, it's a bit more of a dance (or a frantic scrabble, as the case may be) and that complicates something that is already not that easy to do. It's something that we're constantly trying to work on, anyhow. more: Tsk tsk. You are on the verge of punting kittens there, sir. The problem with time management on projects of this scope is that there is nothing simple about it. No plan meets contact with the enemy, not ever. Entire schools of thought are devoted on how to do this sort of thing properly. And while, yes, delaying the project another week might indeed give it a better ending that tends to be a slippery slope towards delaying it for all sorts of other reasons. And we won't even look at feature creep, which is a whole other ball of wax. Like I said in another thread, there is so much being done right at the end of a project that you can't just split it all up into things that are "done" and "not done". At no point are we going "okay, we're all done everything else, now let's work on the ending!" -- it's more a matter of working on the ending while you're also simultaneously finishing off every single other part of the game all of which is at various stages of completion. It might be hard to imagine, but the short story is that we always reserve plenty of time to work on something like the ending. Because we do it last, however, by the time we get to it the reality is far, far from ideal. (And, frankly, this applies to a lot more situations that simply a game's ending.) Such is simply how it has always been. I have no good answers, myself, I'm afraid. more: Tell me something I don't know. Even so, the plain fact is that the needs of the story often have to take a backseat when it comes to more practical considerations, much as we might like it to be otherwise. more: You are twisting the facts there, I think. Their goal is to save the world, and they do just that. For some characters this is a pyrrhic victory, sure, but it is still a victory -- Sauron does not conquer Middle Earth. Evil is vanquished. To portray the Lord of the Rings as a tale where the heroes do not complete their quest is more than a bit off -- it is, I suspect, the most classic example of such. Some General Questions About Dragon Age Yeah, DA's a funny project if you're going to talk development time, because it hasn't been developed on a normal schedule. It all depends on what you consider to be "in development", really. Do we count the period where DA was just being planned and there were talks about it? Do we count the time where there was a handful of us passing around design docs and working on the background material? Do we count the period where there was a small team putting together the tech demo for E3 in 2003? Personally, I can't even pinpoint for you when the "full" team came together, as it's been done in bits and globs over the last few years. I'm not sure how other companies do it, but I suspect you all wouldn't normally be privy to those periods of a project. All that stuff would be going on behind the scenes, with you all blissfully unaware that anything was even going on. Not that this hasn't been a long process, sure, but I suspect it seems longer than you're used to because of the extra early announcement. Whether you consider that to be a good thing or not is debateable, but there it is. Party banter topics I'll ask a question, here, because I'm curious: Is being able to ask your party member anything at all and strike up conversations with them really that important? And I don't mean this from the perspective of "oh they don't want to read all that!" or anything of the sort. Naturally I love dialogue. I do wonder, however, if having all these discussions with a party member really doesn't offer diminishing returns. Now, before you scoff and knee-jerk to "but more is better!" think about it. In Baldur's Gate 2, the only party members you could speak to directly outside of directly quest-related conversations were the romances. And even then they initiated on their terms. Did that make you feel less close to them? Did you feel less close to the non-romance characters? Part of the issue is that I think you get a lot more characterization out of doing than simply talking. When you're talking about something immediately relevant, like the quest at hand or the statue that's in front of you, you're getting characterization in context. But just talking to them seems like the dialogue equivalent of exposition, at times. Another possible issue is one of expectation. If you can chat with the party member at any time about anything, wouldn't that build up the expectation that you should be able to talk to them about anything? I'm all for having some flavorful dialogues, and it certainly seems like talking to your party member should just be like dialogue in a book or a movie -- but you have to remember that in those other mediums it's always staged. It's always at the perfect moment, or with the proper sub-text. Not to mention that sometimes I think we almost get more bang for the buck with things like banter between the party members themselves, or the little comments they make at random (the pop-up comments in Hordes of the Underdark were wonderful, I thought, compared to how much work they required). Maybe the responses I will get will suggest that maybe we're just not doing it right, and maybe we're not, but I find this is one area where my experience says that expectations of what should work do not always match reality. Questions on magic in Upcoming Dragonage There are a couple of questions in there, but let me see if I can sort them out. As far as the power of the individual mage goes, I would say that, yes, they can be quite powerful. A lot depends on the sort of magic they specialize in, but in general magic tends to be pretty blatant in its effect. By and large, spells are crafted for use in battle -- but that is primarily because that is what is taught. Other magics do exist, like mind control, but they are forbidden and obviously not the sort of thing one gets taught at Hogwart's (so to speak). Which is not to say that an interested mage couldn't learn such forbidden arts, just that he's not going to start off with it. more: 1. Can a Mage call fire from thin air? Or does there need to be a source present to manipulate. Effectively, yes, you can call fire from thin air. Transmutation of such energies is the meat and potatoes of the Primal school, but regardless of the explanation the end result is the same. more: Hmmm. There are limitations as to the scope of magic in Dragon Age -- it's not a power that let's one just "do anything". You couldn't, for instance, just whip up a house... or change the weather patterns, for that matter. Spells are often more blunt in their nature, the application of (or transformation of) energy, and any repercussions are going to be local and immediate. There is also the sort of enchantments practiced by the Tranquil, but that is way on the other end of the spectrum and even less like what you're talking about. As I said, however, the reason for this is largely because this is what mages are taught -- as in this is what they are allowed to be taught. There are likely more things that magic can be employed for, even going so far as breaking the "rules" of magic -- certainly your average renegade would claim such -- but none of that is going to be common knowledge you start off with. Does that answer your question? more: No, if your mana is used up, it's used up. There are ways to slow down your mana use, but no ways to simply replenish your mana unless you-- well, no. That would be forbidden. Mustn't discuss that. Motion sickness sensitive: Will I be able to play? Dragon Age may not be the game for you, then. Toolset? If you're going to put a toolset out there, you want it in a shape so that it would be useable by the general public. And, yes, it would have to be supported. Since the focus of DA is not on having a toolset, it's not going to get as much attention as the game itself is getting -- but that's not to say that we don't want to put it out there. Just that it's too early for us at the moment to judge when & how. more: Err... did we say we would withhold it? You're not talking to a company that doesn't know the value of a modding community, after all. All I'm saying is that whenever we put it out, it's going to work. If we really decide not to put the toolset out there, it's probably because it wouldn't benefit anyone -- not even hidden away secretly somewhere. PC Personality As someone who enjoys a little snarkiness, myself, and employs plenty of it in real life I will just point out that sadly it doesn't work quite like you'd expect it to in a game. The problem is that in order to be snappy or witty you often need very specific lines -- much like the examples you've given. The problem is that they often become too specific. You get players who want to have a playful or cheeky character but who wouldn't opt for that tone specifically (in which case the option is wasted)... you might think it's weird, but when it comes to the funny responses there are a lot more nuances than you might think. Sarcasm is not the same as cheeky is not the same as witty. So which one do you pick? Not that you can't occasionally find something that's still a funny line without it being so specific nobody wants to pick it -- there are lines like that in DA, for sure. The issue that you need to contend with, really, is just how much time you're going to spend giving the player options on how he says things rather than what he says. Considering that the "smartass" option is generally 100% a how-you-say-it option rather than a what-you-say one, it's often a difficult one to squeeze in. I suppose we could make a game where there are dozens of option at every node which include all the various ways that a player could say a line, for the purity of roleplaying (and one assumes these dozens would be for every possible what-you-say option)... either that or you get to pick some option at the beginning of the game saying "I am stoic" or "I am a smartass" or what have you, and then all the what-you-say options were presented in that manner (requiring, of course, that we then write every single dialogue options in each applicable variety -- I'm really looking forward to THAT game, myself, wooo)... but, to me, that seems like spending an inordinate amount of time on something that I think you really would get a limited amount of return on. That may just be me, but I think there's a reason you tend to only get these sorts of lines in games where your protaganist is a set one that has already been assigned that smartass-type personality and there isn't any choice in the matter. Just something for you to chew on. I suspect there are people who will profoundly disagree with me (as always), but all I'm saying is that this is one place where my experience has taught me that what you think might be neat doesn't always play out like you think it should when it comes to actual application in-game. The Bioware Plot Model [MANY SPOILERS] The plot model you point out isn't any kind of mandate. It is, rather, an observation of the route we tend to take-- for some very good reasons. I know that it's very easy for the jaded to bemoan how very tired they are of it all, god forbid their delicate sensibilities have to endure yet another epic adventure, right? But we have our way of doing things, and I think it's pretty fair to say we play it pretty safe. We're not going to do something different solely for the sake of being different. That said, nobody said we won't do anything different. Dragon Age will have its distinctive features and innovations that make it Dragon Age. Even so, I am quite certain some people will see whatever they expect to see. Break any story down far enough, after all, and you'll be left with the Hero's Journey or something that looks like that plot model. Not hard to do. more: As I said, I've got nothing against trying different things-- but different does not make it good, no more than familiar makes it bad. You seem to be saying that only by doing something different can we be creative, which I don't agree with. Sure, I wouldn't mind doing something really different with the story, myself-- but I am a writer. If writing were all there were to making a game, that wouldn't be such an issue, but of course it's not. more: I will just point out that "mixing it up" is responsible for some of the worst bits of game design I've seen lately. I'll be playing a game, enjoying whatever element of gameplay that they've put out that's solid and polished -- and suddenly everything gets flipped on its ear and you very much get the impression that the designer suddenly decided to "mix it up" for no good reason and it's very much not fun. I appreciate the "make it art" advice, but it honestly seems like you are imagining the process to be something it's not. more: I wonder that, myself. Perhaps it's because everyone expects the "next big title". Perhaps it's because any game that isn't pushing the envelope gets written off by the media and the industry. I'd like to think that there's room for a smaller title to be a hit sort of the same way that an independant art film can be -- but something tells me the mediums simply don't compare that neatly. If games were all about the story and the art & technology side didn't matter, maybe that wouldn't be the case... but, again, it really is. more: In other words, to do something great it takes talent, determination and a set of brass ones! And I for one am not questioning Bioware's talent or determination Uh-huh. Well, thanks for the tip. Shoot, Miranda is doing it at Ossian Studios with the Obsidian enhanced Aurora engine! Is doing what? Paying the bills for a company with 350 employees? I suspect not. Is it just fear that a low profit game (or a stinker) will tarnish the brand? If so, why not create a small sub studio for Indies? Disney created Touchstone... Perhaps you forget that we did have the Live Team and are moving into creating stuff like the Sonic game -- which does take a much smaller team. I could even see us setting up a satellite studio, who knows? Perhaps we don't do more of that because we don't have the people to spare from the larger projects which we want to do -- or perhaps we're simply not doing the projects that you would like us to do? It sounds like you should be sitting down with the company guys and discussing their business plan with them. Shall we set up a meeting? more: Perhaps instead of holding your breath you should start your own company or get a job in the industry. You might think that unrealistic, but I'm thinking it might offer you some perspective. It is, after all, very easy to cheer from the sidelines when you've nothing to lose. As for the rest, there's no harm in offering an opinion, so I'll just take it for what it is. Thank you. How close do you want DA to be to BG? 1. Identifying weapons No, you don't need to identify anything. 2. Longer story with more side quests 2a More twists and/or deeper story (probably would come with a longer story) Hard to judge at this point... perhaps? Even so, if you're expecting BG2 kind of longer, that's not going to happen. 3. keep the D&D elements that has made BG II my favorite game of all time Which are? The DA rules system has some things in common with D&D, but not much. 4. Keep the classes more strict (I think this one may be out already but i'll explain anyway) A mage should not be able to pick up a sword and use it just as good as a warrior/fighter class. Definitely not in the works. Mages are strict in the sense that they're the only class that can spellcast, but otherwise there's a lot of leeway allowed in which direction you want to take your mix of classes and abilities. 5. Armor that "makes sense" I had a Light armor that was just as good as my heavy armor in ME (this could not happen in BG 2) It could maybe have special abilities but it would not have an armor class just as good as the best heavy armor. The DA armors are pretty distinct, though it's not clear-cut when it comes to usefulness. Some types of armor are better against certain classes of weapons. Heavier armor provides more protection, but is not always desireable depending on what kind of fighter you're going for. 6. More Cities/different types of locations. (after awhile it seemed like ME looked the same except on the main quest). We've got some pretty distinct areas, including cultures which have a distinct look, but I'm not sure if this would be more or less distinct than ME. Re-use of art is always going to lead to a little bit of this, but without re-use of art you're never going to get to any sort of volume of content, I'm afraid. If you want longer games with more areas, you'll need to give a little on this area, I think. 7. Less mainstream than ME (ME for the masses BG for true RPGers) Without question. ME was an Action/RPG for a reason. DA is intentionally aimed more towards the core RPG audience. more: Ha. I think I can say with certainty that dialogue alone is not going to expand your playing time by that much. Some, perhaps, but ultimately more story requires more resources. This is why we designers spend so much time hat in hand imitating Oliver Twist at our project meetings. This is not to say that DA is going to be short, by any means. The focus is on content, for sure. All I'm saying is that if your expectations run to thinking that the amount of content in BG2 is or should be the norm that you're setting yourself up for disappointment. BG2 is fine and all (I reserve a warm little place in my black, black heart for it, as well) but even had we the capability I'm not sure we'd want to make a game as long again. I'm sure y'all appreciated the effort that went into it, but even as we were doing it we recognized that it was excessively indulgent. There are lots of things that went into the kind of experience that BG2 offered which can (and are) being brought into DA -- amongst other things. Massively-almost-overlong game length is not all that BG2 had going for it, after all. more: but if you have trouble coming up with a huge amount of new content This is really not the issue. But that's *why* people love and remember it. That's super. I love it, too. It also doesn't change anything. more: I wasn't trying to be snarky. All I was trying to say was that the fact that you or I or anyone remembers BG well doesn't change the reality we're facing today. And someone can be cynical about it if they like and suggest how we "just don't care" about those fans who liked BG anymore, but it's not even about that. BG was a product of its time -- and while you may look back on those days with rose-coloured glasses, *I* certainly wouldn't want to relive most of those difficulties that went into making it. Not for anyone. more: We're still considering our options when it comes to post-release content -- do we want to expand the current story or continue on to new places? That sort of thing. Add-ons like you're suggesting are certainly not out of the question, however. Chris Priestly, Community Coordinator What do we want from a Demo? I would not expect a demo. That isn't to say that it couldn't happen. But we are not a company that generally does demos. Sorry. more: videos, Maybe screenshots Possibly concept art Could be. gameplay videos Feasibly trailers Perhaps. big news update? Perchance. Any talk about any of this at all for 2008? Conceivably But not necessarily. Toolset? The important thing for EVERYONE to remember here is that everything is still in the works and no decisions have been made yet. So don't get over emotional one way or the other as nothing has been set in stone regarding toolset, support, release, etc, yet. When we do have news about Dragon Age and/or a toolset for DA, we'll make it known. Stay tuned. Scott Meadows, Senior Programmer Toolset? Of course there is a toolset. How else would everyone do their work. Will it ship to you though... I don't know. The above link is a good summary to read. We are trying to focus on making Dragon Age a great game. more: You are not part of a developement company then... Ever hear of distractions, changes in scope, etc... I say trying, I could change it to say trying and succeeding, but I am sure someone else out there will come along and twist my words. To quote Bart and Homer. "I tried really hard and still failed." "Well then, you learned a valuable lesson; Never Try." Georg Zoeller, Designer Classes ? There are no class based item usage restrictions (e.g. if you want to wield a sword with your mage, go ahead). Sheryl Chee, Writer Arena Not necessarily. There are different kinds of Provings. The rules of each match are decided before the match begins. It can be a duel to the death (and tends to be, if one is fighting for honor) or to first blood. Breaking these rules, for instance, killing someone during a fight to first blood, results in pretty serious consequences. And the Provings that serve as entertainment don't normally result in a death. They'd just run out of combatants that way, and the fans would be annoyed. more: When such things happen--and they happen very rarely--it's usually an accident. Someone got carried away and went too far. The Provings are almost sacred in dwarven culture, and choosing to disregard the rules of the Proving Grounds is like giving the ancestors the finger. It's not acceptable and you're pretty much bringing shame upon your entire house. Most dwarves wouldn't do it if they could help it. Whether or not we give you the choice to do it... well, that's like asking if we're going to give you the choice to go on a mad killing spree and murder everyone in a town. No, you don't get that choice. Sure we could give you that choice, but what would it add to the story, really? [Add/Comments: 0] - [View Comments/Permalink] - [Top] Posted: January 2, 2008, 4:42 pm by chevalier Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, taken from the Dragon Age Official Forum. Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end. David Gaider, Lead Writer Things I don't want to see in DA (have we done this yet?) No rapiers or katanas that I'm aware of. more: Thankfully, the heavier armors such as chain are pretty covering on both sexes. more: The gold coin in Ferelden is called a "sovereign" ...but it's not the base unit, really. If you go around waving a sovereign, you're likely to be mobbed by peasants. The more common coins are "silvers" and "bits". more: guns, futuristic vehicles and robots - I don't believe you'll do this anyway because you're cool. And you would be correct. more: I don't know what your idea of superfast or supermassive is, but I suspect the issue is relative. It'll be pretty fast, if not vaulting you up to godlike levels of power. more: Well, the plot in this particular story is pretty urgent. The idea is not for you to be leisurely wandering about the countryside, doing whatever you fancy. There will be a little bit of that, but most of the quests all tie in to the events that are happening (if not the critical path). Those who are more interested in a total sandbox game need not apply. more: It's not an anti-alcohol sentiment, it's more "what's the point?" If we really wanted to make this into a gameplay element, I suppose we could concoct something -- but we don't. more: loadbearing boss-monsters - why must the Cavern of Final Confrontations always collapse? Strange thing to pinpoint. Have we ever had this? If we did, I'd imagine it's a pretty specific reason. more: You'd prefer they all be super-competent guards like in MMO's? Where every city guardsman is 50th level and makes you wonder why he isn't out saving the world instead of you? --- And I suppose the rest of this thread will now be filled by people listing anything that might ever have annoyed them -- even if only slightly -- even once in a previous game. Well, so be it. more: Tough noogies. There are a couple of hostile animals, though thankfully no badgers this time around. more: A complete lack of Zombie Kitten references. We may have one, though it was tough to work in considering the word "zombie" doesn't exist in DA. more: A male romance-able NPC with a dead ex-girlfriend/mother/wife/ sister/dog/Nigerian Dwarf Goat who I remind him of. Oh, get OVER it, already. more: Well... there's no overt dwarf pr0n... more: It's just what I said. They don't use the word "zombie" (and considering its Caribbean origins, I find it a strange word to include in standard fantasy as it is). This does not also mean that undead do not exist. more: I suppose, but what contrivance would I use to get players to drink in the first place just to have such a conversation? I have played games where there is alcohol that adds some type of negative effect -- and since there's also no reason on Earth to actually drink it, you end up doing it once and going "ha ha" and then never doing it again. Maybe there's some people who find it constantly amusing, but that would strike me as pretty strange. Again, if we wanted to come up with some type of gameplay reason for players to hang out in taverns and get drunk -- maybe a game where you earn some type of long-term fatigue that can only be worked off by some hard drinking and R&R? -- and then tie conversations to that, that would be one thing. But we're not doing that, to my knowledge. more: And I said there will be some of that-- just that doing things that are completely unrelated and which take a lot of time, such as managing your theoretical estate, are not going to work. Just because it is not one thing does not mean that it is automatically the complete opposite. I know you guys like to immediately jump to that sort of conclusion, but let's hold off on most of it until we can show you what we mean. I don't want to cause any heart attacks, after all. more: There are several types of creatures that could be called undead... but I can't go into what they are, right now, without also going into a whole bunch of other stuff. If you see a dead body walking around in DA, however (and you will), it's not going to be called a zombie -- let's leave it at that. more: Understood. Keep in mind, however, that even being able to rest in an inn is a gameplay mechanic -- it need not be so. We do have inns and taverns that players can go into, and on a case-by-case basis there could even be a situation where you ply someone with spirits, sure. more: We will talk about them more at some point, sure. As to those who are concerned about the amount of detail in ME's characters or romances, however, all I can really say is that DA's party members generally have more dialogue. But that's just the type of game DA is. Whether or not you will enjoy said dialogue more is really the question. more: Chainmail bikinis go against all logic and common sense, if I was a developer I wouldn't make any even if all forumites loved them. In fact, chainmail bikinis make all kinds of sense. Just not the sort of sense one encounters on these forums. acquiring ingame information (books) Not unless it involves a specific plot. Finding books will open up entries in the Codex, most likely. Party or one man show? Hmm, i think currently there are going to be 3-5 party members(including yourself). You create your main char, all the rest are brought into the team during the game. Direct control over the party members is a deffo. The game will be designed for a party though solo play will be kept in mind. More or less it i think. Currently it is a party of 4 (including yourself), but the rest of that is all correct, yes. more: Set or not set, things can always change. Short of me including a legal disclaimer with each post, I will always discuss features in this sense until they are absolutely nailed down and certain -- which few features really are until the last stages of development. A lot of fans seem to have the idea that game development is a series of tasks which are completed, after which we move onto the next one. We make the engine, for instance, and when the engine is done we write the story, and when the story is done we make the models and do the scripting... and so forth. The truth is that all these things are done more or less at once and none are fully finished until near the end. Even the engine thing -- most of the time, we are using a half-working engine to try and implement the game, and it gets re-vamped and changed constantly as we go along. It's all rather chaotic, with 90% of the work getting done in the last 10% of development as everything starts to get pulled together into something coherent. This is why there is nothing to show the public for most of the project -- with everything still being worked on and all in pieces, it's rare that we have something that can be put on display without actually interrupting the development process in order to put together (something that happens whenever a show like E3 comes around, for instance). more: The party size is 4, barring some unforeseen circumstance. It's not really up for discussion. As for whether the upper limit will be changeable by modders -- I doubt it, but we'll see. Ultimately I suspect it would be a GUI issue. The fact that there would be already some people straining at the bit to turn the game into D&D before they know how the game actually plays or what the rules even are tempts me to roll my eyes again, but I know such hand-wringing is inevitable. more: Which is why I know the hand-wringing is inevitable. The comparisons are understandable, even if they are not always made consciously. more: However i would still like it if modders could still alter the upper cap : ) Where there's a will, there's usually a way. ...unless there isn't. In which case I guess there's a won't. Um. I had a point. I think. *wanders off* more: DA doesn't really start like either KotOR or BG/BG2. The entire first chapter of DA is completely unique depending on the background you've chosen. more: I dont suppose you can tell us roughly how many NPCs we will get access to? Because things can change I don't know the exact number myself, but we're talking more than a few and less than, say, a baker's dozen. more: As much indication as you would upon meeting anyone. And if it turns out they weren't who you thought they were, you can always tell them to hit the road. Or just leave them at camp, I suppose. Up to you. more: Well, sure! With that logic, why stop at 6? Why not 8? Why not 12? If more automatically translates into more tactics, more character and more choices it really seems like a no-brainer. Obviously I am exaggerating, and I think you understand the point anyhow. There are indeed other factors that feature in this decision, ones that make "more" not always a good thing. And while it worked well in BG, sure, I'm not so convinced it was solely because of that. Heck, perhaps it was in spite of that. Regardless, the number stands at 4 and you will simply have to trust that it belongs there. Or not. It's all good. more: And what do you think such a poll would tell us? Other than that most people think that a party of six (or thereabouts) would be better, based primarily on the fact that previous games they have liked also had that many. ...until proven otherwise. Which is always the way. It's always a cliche, or it won't work, or it's insufficient... until you enjoy it. Well, okay, then it was done fine. If I've learned anything about the hardcore, it's that you just won't like it until you do. more: It sounds like DA's camp system supports both options, which makes the silhouette model a bad fit in my opinion. So... good thing we don't do that. Please, No Level Caps Or XP Caps I have certainly played games where one might encounter the cap even in regular play (Arcanum comes to mind-- I think I hit the cap about 3/4 of the way through the game), so it's possible that a game's level cap might be unrealistic-- but unless you're dealing with some kind of system where each level gives you only statistical bonuses ultimately a cap is necessary as only so much content is possible. I know that, for the progression-oriented player, the urge is to keep on playing and keep taking those levels and ability higher and higher-- but the game only goes so far, I'm afraid. Giving Quests to NPCs? Ignoring for the moment the tone of your post (or your apparent need for ego deflation), I'll just point out that I never said that assigning quests to NPC's was impossible. In some cases I think it might be an interesting feature, so long as it was not used to simply replace the player experiencing actual game content himself. May I suggest you go back and read the original post before simply accusing me of things out of hand? Breaking Up Okay, to be clear: The game keeps track of your relationship with each party member. If you are not romancing the character (and, no, it is not possible to romance everyone) then having a good relationship means you are friends. For those that are romanceable, you'll have the opportunity to flirt and be flirted with. If you shut that down ("not interested") they'll stop. At some point either you or they will need to determine if there is actual interest-- and if so, then the romance begins in earnest. Otherwise they can just be a friend you flirt innocently with throughout the game, up to you. While in the romance, there are certainly things that can happen that can cause them to end it. Alternatively, you do indeed have the option to talk to them and say that the romance is over. In either case, the way it ends will determine the effect on your relationship. It's not impossible to end the relationship and stay friends, depending on the situation. Naturally this is discussing the romances outside of the context of the rest of the plot-- but I think you get the point. more: Ending a roamnce with a Follower will have the following effects: If you break up with them: - The Follower will leave the party and the next time you see them they are married to an NPC that looks exactly like you. - If you enter a Tavern after the break-up, the Follower will be there performing songs about the break-up. - The Follower's friends will approach you, in random encounters, to tell you what a jerk you are. If the Follower ends the romance with you: - You can only wear black-coloured armour for the rest of the game. - You gain access to the Emo Advanced Class. - You gain access to the Advanced Brooding Feat and Bad Poetry Writing skill. - Ambient NPCs will point and laugh at you when you walk by. - 25% of all NPCs you encounter will look exactly like the Follower who stomped on your fictional heart. - On the Character Sheet, your hometown gets set to Dumpsville! Dialogue All NPC's will have voice over, not just some. But otherwise, yes, PC dialogue is silent with your options fully written out verbatim. Where there will be a similarity with Mass Effect will be in the cinematic quality to the conversations, I expect. more: Well, I only know what is planned, so I can't really say. At this point I'm lucky if someone's scalp isn't being sucked into their skull as they talk, so nuance of emotion isn't quite on the table just yet. Codex Will there be anything similar to the codex in Mass Effect in DA? That's what we're considering, yes, though the DA version probably won't be so... science-y. more: I don't believe the DA version of the Codex is going to be VO'd at all, actually. But I guess we'll see how it ends up. more: Good, and please don't go into so much fine detail. A lot of the ME codex stuff is good, but the real "technical" nitty-gritty just bores me to tears. Well, part of the thing about something like a Codex is that all the information given is optional. Some people are going to like the technical nitty-gritty, after all. Others are going to skim it. That said, having an un-science-y Codex does mean the nitty-gritty will also be less science-y. I don't see a problem with codex VO though, because obviously it's magic and has a personality of its own. Not having VO does provide us a bit more freedom in this case, however. Personally I don't think it is such a terrible thing to ask someone to read, so long as it's optional. more: Also having to skip over a lot of nitty gritty you could skip over something really interesting. Well THAT part is up to you. I don't advise skipping, I'm just saying that you can read or not read, as you like. I guess part of it is in how it's organized too. Indeed. For that you'll want to stare directly at Mary. more: I will say this once. Players have different motivations for playing games. Some play just for combat, some like progression, some like exploration and others are just in it for the story. Most fall into two or even three categories to one degree or another. The uncharted worlds provide something for some of those players. THEY SERVE A PURPOSE. Even if we could combine a bunch of those worlds into something that you would find more personally pleasing (and we couldn't) we wouldn't want to. If you want to complain about ME, I suggest you go to the ME forum and do it. I, for one, am getting a little tired of you bringing it up here in every thread you can under the guise that it applies somehow to DA because "this is where Bioware is going". Realistic numbers (or: foes vs toughness) and the Tardis effect Insofar as party control goes, that's an abstraction that is there for the sake of convenience. There are only so many characters you can recruit, after all, so having some high-level control over their skills and abilities means that you will be able to make them fit better into your party. If there's anything we've learned from previous games it's that having an interesting personality only goes so far -- we are, after all, talking about a tactical party game where you spend a lot of your time in combat. If a party member isn't considered to be useful, he's simply not going to end up being used, period. So since your own character can be of any sort, we'd rather put the power over the party member level-ups in your hands. Oh, I suspect we'll have some kind of "auto-level" option for them if you don't want to spend the time. And there's a couple of more extreme options which some characters might not be willing to take even so ("you want me to do what?") but I think this really has to be looked at from a gameplay perspective and not a storytelling one. If you really MUST look at it as you barking orders at your party members and telling them what skills and such they will learn and such -- well, that's up to you. But like most genre and game contrivances of this naturs, it really is up to you to determine how you interpret them. more: As someone who has played around with AI in the past (I did my own plucking away at various scripts for the Ascension mod after ToB went out), I will say that there's more trickiness to it than you might suspect. Most people don't want good AI. They want opponents that appear intelligent but are still defeatable. When you're up against actually good AI, part of the problem is that it's like going up against the computer in a chess game -- you don't say "wow, this AI is good", you say "gosh, this game is hard". A computer, after all, doesn't know when to ease up -- it's always going to be relentless, and since it thinks 100x faster than any human player it can often appear to be cheating when it's being truly intelligent. So then you come up against the fact that the level of AI is linked to the overall difficulty of the game. So the quick answer offered by a forum person is, naturally, "why not have AI scale according to the difficulty level? It can't be that hard!" And that's where I cackle as the poor kitty smashes through the plate glass window. Poor kitty. Naturally, it doesn't get made any easier due to the fact that AI is generally the last thing that gets worked on -- and thus often gets short shrift as it's squeezed out by schedule overruns elsewhere. But there's quite a bit more to it than just summing it up as programmers being lazy or short-sighted. Mary Kirby, Writer Party or one man show? You have a camp. Characters that you have recruited are there, if they are not in your active party. However, if you don't recruit a character, in most cases, you're not going to find them waiting around for you to change your mind. And if you provoke your party memebers into leaving, you won't see them again. more: No alignment. No paladins. You can recruit people who decide over time that you're evil, and they may attack you. Codex Well, one of the purposes of the Codex is to contain the entirely optional information: The stuff that really shouldn't have in-game dialogue devoted to it. Want to know about the ancient history of the dwarven kingdom? Find out who the first king of Ferelden was? Read bits of the Chant of Light? It's all in the Codex. Do you need to read this stuff? No. It's there for the people who want all the background information. All the details of dwarven history, the Ferelden royal family, and the prevailing religion, that directly relates to the story is in the game dialogue. We just don't want to turn the experience of playing Dragon Age into an interactive encyclopedia of TheDAS. more: Wrath of Dagon, I understand that you didn't care for the uncharted worlds. That's perfectly valid. The effort, however, put into writing Mass Effect's codex was not taken out of the uncharted worlds. Entirely different people worked on those features. This particular criticism is akin to suggesting that if a game has an excellent musical score and bad camera control, it must be because all the zots went to the score. The people who design and build that system are not also composers. In Dragon Age, for example, all the quests were written first. The codex is being written last. Quite a few of us worked on those quests,, but the Codex? That's being written pretty much just by me. If I weren't writing the codex, would I be writing or expanding more side-quests? No. That part has already been done by now. If, when you play the game, you aren't satisfied with the quality of the quests, well, that will be a shame, but it won't be due to the fact that I wrote a codex entry on Fluffy Mackerel Pudding. (Now, if you aren't happy with the entry on Fluffy Mackerel Pudding, that will be my fault. But I can live with that.) Scott Meadows, Senior Programmer Can you undress your female characters? No. Sheryl Chee, Writer Codex Wrath of Dagon, I understand that you didn't care for the uncharted worlds. That's perfectly valid. The effort, however, put into writing Mass Effect's codex was not taken out of the uncharted worlds. Entirely different people worked on those features. This particular criticism is akin to suggesting that if a game has an excellent musical score and bad camera control, it must be because all the zots went to the score. The people who design and build that system are not also composers. In Dragon Age, for example, all the quests were written first. The codex is being written last. Quite a few of us worked on those quests,, but the Codex? That's being written pretty much just by me. If I weren't writing the codex, would I be writing or expanding more side-quests? No. That part has already been done by now. If, when you play the game, you aren't satisfied with the quality of the quests, well, that will be a shame, but it won't be due to the fact that I wrote a codex entry on Fluffy Mackerel Pudding. (Now, if you aren't happy with the entry on Fluffy Mackerel Pudding, that will be my fault. But I can live with that.) more: I'll take a shorter high quality game over a longer one padded with filler any day. Yes, that's called the main plot. If you don't like what you call the "filler" you can ignore it. [Add/Comments: 0] - [View Comments/Permalink] - [Top] Posted: January 2, 2008, 4:08 pm by chevalier Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, taken from the Dragon Age Official Forum. Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end. David Gaider, Lead Writer Kaitlyn Is Kaitlyn ever involved in a quest? Yes. Is Gorim another NPC? Yes. How does this help you? Not at all. You people are very bizarre. (And I prefer "romanceable" -- just as I prefer "judgement" over "judgment"). more: and is she, by any chance, the last surviving member of an ancient race? just a wild stab in the dark... Not unless humans are an almost-extinct ancient race. more: Are Kaitlyn and Gorim directly involved in any "subplot", or protagonists of a whole chapter of the story, or otherwise important characters? I wouldn't say they're very important characters, no, though they're both involved in the main plot for the chapter they appear in. We're not trying to drop party members on you, here -- these are just a couple of names that Stan dredged up in his infinite wisdom. The Nemesis of Bioware. What I'd really want is for the game to be open ended! I mean, really open ended. Sort of like the TES series, where the game is one huge place, and you can go whenever you want to other places. Even after the game finishes! Maybe after the game finishes aint that important, but being really really open ended is! I can pretty much guarantee that you're talking about a type of game that is completely different from what DA is trying to do. follower nostalgia I suppose there might be certain characters that people claim reminds them of something we've done before -- "so-and-so is just as annoying as Anomen!" or "so-and-so is just Minsc with a new face!" and what have you. Certainly there's no character that we've repeated *deliberately*. I personally like to try out new things whenever I get the chance. Though the fact that I've written so many fantasy games does give me a bit of deja vu now and again ("I have a feeling that I've written this particular fantasy village before...") ...and sometimes we revisit themes almost by accident (Bastila*cough*Aribeth) ...but, no, never on purpose. more: I cant belive that even the creators claim that Anomen is annoying. I made no such claim. I only claim that there are people who like to say such, without simultaneously mentioning that they make my eyes roll whenever they do. Wait, there I said it now. Oh well. Honetsly, that mostly red-haired cutsey girly rogue thing went on for ages. Hopefully, we won't have another Imoen- Annah- Mission- Neeshka - under any other name. A male for a rogue! A cutsey funny male for a rogue! I'm laughing as I read this, because we actually do have a red-haired female rogue (at least she's red-haired in all the concept art). She isn't anything like Imoen, really, however. In fact, the male rogue probably quips more funny one-liners per square inch than she does. more: Our dwarves don't use axes. Blasphemy, I know, but what would they use an axe for? It's not like they have trees to cut down. more: Well, they import wood from the surface -- so it's not as if they have no wood at all (or no axes at all) -- it's just not as widespread amongst their culture. Wood is considered an extravagance, and let's not forget that stone often works much better than steel when it comes to construction. As for dwarven weapons, if you must know: hammers and swords, mainly. more: I would say no -- we're not working under any kind of dictate to maintain racial stereotypes or character archetypes. If anything, I suppose we sometimes do it to ourselves... we'll create a character that we like and flesh it out and someone else will come along and go "you know, that's almost like so-and-so" or "isn't that pretty stereotypical?" or what have you. And we'll sit back and go "huh, yeah maybe" ...though that was not what we set out to do. We could change it, but at some point playing against archetypes can go too far (see Shadows of Undrentide). Do you want to have the dour rogue or the perky, pacifist dwarf simply as a gimmick? We've got to decide what we find interesting about writing the character and the rest is simply what it is. But if you're asking if someone is mandating that our elves must be poofy and our rogues rascally or such -- no, not really. more: Of course they wouldn't use weapons to cut wood... but in my mind, they maybe wouldn't think to make an axe as a weapon if they didn't first have the version about that was used to cut wood. But whatever. It's not as if dwarves don't have axes, it's just not their most prolific weapon, culturally speaking. They mainly use swords. End of story. Background, Race and Parents wrt backgrounds/choices; do you create your character first, NWN style, or make those choices via a prologue-style tutorial, like the Elder Scrolls games, to get a feeling of how you'd fit in before deciding on a class/name etc? We ask you a series of enigmatic moral questions and then intuit what race, class and origin best suit you from those. We find this is a very elegant, next-gen solution that takes the stress out of the decision-making process. Oddly enough, everyone seems to end up being a dwarf so far. But we're working on it. ... ...okay, no, we aren't actually doing that. But it would be totally awesome. Owning Land/Property? It's not so much that you can't return to a set point -- you can, in fact, return to most areas in the game even after the quest(s) you did there are complete. It's more that the situation you're in isn't very conducive to leisurely wandering the countryside, buying real estate or raising chocobos or what have you. I'm all for stuff like having a headquarters or a stronghold -- I suspect very much we'll do that again at some point. Just not for this particular story in DA. more: What about being a ruler? For instance, if one is a dwarven prince, one owns a kingdom, even if you don't manage the land. Will there be instances of a PC being granted lands and estates that way? If you are, it'll be something you pursue once the events of the story are over. more: Except that I already said there would be no strongholds in DA. We might do that again sometime, but not in this first story. more: I get what you mean, but it's a little early even for us here at Bioware to do more than conjecture about the possibilities. Mary Kirby, Writer Kaitlyn So who's this Kaitlyn? Is it some kind of romanceable companion NPC? Nope. more: more so than you think. Let's go back to page 1 shall we... Q: Is it some kind of romanceable companion NPC? A: Nope. So we know that she's an NPC who's involved in a quest, and is not romanceable (according to Mary). She can't use magic, meaning she's either a fighter type or rogue type, or not a companion at all (in which case she may also be a commoner, aristocrat, noblewoman, or even a scribe, merchant, provider of information etc). Actually, you don't know that. Just because something is not A and B does not mean that it is neither A nor B. So she is either: not romanceable, not a companion, not an NPC, or a combination of any of those. I'm not sayin'... Stanley Woo, QA Ninja Kaitlyn Wow, all this for one name of one NPC. I wonder what people would say if I mentioned the name "Gorim." more: She's also, I noticed, simply referred to as Kaitlyn, and not Lady Kaitlyn. Interesting... Sure, but I didn't mention Gorim's title earlier, did I? Chew on that one. more: Like Dave, I enjoy dropping info on you guys from time to time, but whereas he has ALL the info, I only have little bits and pieces. So I have to be more vague than he is, and I can let him pick up all the pieces that I drop. Serves him right for stabbing me in the face so often. more: but then wouldn't you end up with a bijillion NPCs standing there in the final chapter thanking you for helping them out earlier? That might get tiresome. I mean, the last thing I want is Ruck and Filda thanking me for helping them, since they want completely different things! Is Dragon Age going to be coming out for xbox360? Dragon Age has only been announced as a PC game. End of line. Curious about gaming careers How did I end up in the gaming industry? I applied for the job. Sheryl Chee, Writer Kaitlyn EDIT: Is Kaitlyn the red-haired female rogue mentioned in the "follower nostalgia" thread? Nope. more: You know, Stan, if you keep name-dropping like this, it's going to lose it's meaning. It's like laser pointers and cats. Eventually they figure out the laser-pointer is just a way to tease them and start ignoring you. Georg Zoeller, Designer Been so busy lately... need to update my DA knowledge PWs won't be possible. [Add/Comments: 0] - [View Comments/Permalink] - [Top] Posted: November 11, 2007, 3:11 pm by chevalier Mary Kirby, Writer Degrees of graphic sex in DA Honestly, even animating disrobing is a huge investment. Clothing would have to move and crinkle in ways it doesn't have to for anything else. And it would be harder to animate well for a cutscene because the player might very well be wearing anything from a mage's robe to heavy plate. There's generally a reason why when you equip new armor, you don't see your character take off the old stuff and pull on his or her new clothes. more: Mass Effect does not have different playable races. You are always human. So they didn't have to make those same sex scenes over and over with different animations to account for the player being a Turian or an Asari. Dragon Age's romances are not restricted by race. You could very well be a dwarf romancing a human, or a human romancing that same character. [Add/Comments: 11] - [View Comments/Permalink] - [Top] |
|
|
|