Dragon age 3 you will once again be playing as a human

[DustyDrB]

I'm not buying the argument that says "I'd rather them limit the choices and make what is there quality". I get what you're saying, but choice is inherent to RPGs. This isn't an either/or situation. As an RPG fan, I want choice and I want those choices to be quality. That's not unreasonable, as it's been done again and again.

 

[Nihlus2]

Can we please just have the Dragon Age franchise go back to do its own thing?

Bioware Rpg titles does not have to rip off the Mass Effect design. Dragon Age: Origins sold fairly well even though it was vastly different from ME - variety is good, it adds personality to the game, depth and needlessly many conversation options for added replayability. I rather enjoyed playing as a somewhat one-minded Shepard with different moralities, then switching over to The Warden, who could condemn a people to eternal torment, have them fight it out with another group, give them salvation, or leave in indifference or a bloodbath.
Both types of morality, conversations and choice were unique to one another, by Dragon Age 2, they were not even trying to hide someone went into the DA development conference and uttered "So that Mass Affect game has been selling well, what can we transfer into this franchise to copy the succes?".

Both styles are good, but it is the variety that ultimate makes both appealing for different reasons. If not it is boiled down to "Do you want Bioware Game X (Fantasy)? Or Bioware Game X (Sci-Fi)?" instead of "Do you want Rpg X or Rpg Y?".

Now bear in mind, I do not mind the added voice acting all that much, but I swear if I see that conversation wheel again I will have Hawke 2 use the option that makes him/her fry him-/herself alive, in an either benevolent, witty or malevolent tone.

I admire the Dragon Age developer team, but I seriously wanna have their marketing department have an hour long meeting with Renegade Shepard and Hawke, see how well things would work out.

 

[darlarosa]

It's harder to write a story with a misc. character with a title ("Bhaal Spawn" and "Grey Warden")

Why does everyone think this is EA's sudden doing...

Why is this automatically such a bad thing?

Most of the dialogue choices in the BG series, and in DA led to the same response or were barely worth noticing. For most of DA:O outside of your origin nothing was important. Occasionally you are called knife ears as an elf, you get a slightly different epilogue. It's nice to design your character a bit more but really who cares in terms of what it deducts from the game because you ultimately lose maybe a bit of dialogue. Come on

 

[Lethviene]

Perhaps it isn't a big deal to some, but speaking for myself, I am a human every day of my life. When I wake up, I'm a human, when I go to work I'm a human, when I go to the beach I'm a human. When I do everything in my real life I am a human, so why, when I am playing another character in a FANTASY world, would I want to be a human? I'm already a human. It gets boring.

Aside from that, I feel like there's so much potential to explore there with the different races. Particularly the animosity between Elves and Humans. Perhaps this is my own life experience talking, but as a multi-racial person who's faced more than her fair share of racism, I can appreciate the position of the Elves, the Dalish most of all. In truth, I can identify with the Elves of the Dragon Age world far more than I can with the humans. To be blunt, I really, truly, dislike the humans of that world so far and feel absolutely NO desire to play as one.

The lack of choices when it comes to race may not be a big deal for some of you, but it's almost a deal breaker for me. I'm sick of humans. And not just in Dragon Age, but in RPGs in general. In Final Fantasy the hero is almost (and yes I said ALMOST, I remember Zidane and Terra, you know) always human, in the Tales games you're a human. Human here, human there, human everywhere. I see humans every day in real life, give me a little respite from them please. Why do you think the notion of aliens is so appealing to so many for goodness' sake?

I mean, Zelda is highly popular and successful and, GASP!, the hero is not a human! OMG, it's the end of the world as we know it! -faints-

Star Ocean's Ratix (or Roddick, whatever you prefer) wasn't human, was he? The original Star Ocean was a wonderful game and a welcome break from all the human infested RPG, Shooter, Strategy, and Adventure games out there.

Don't get me wrong, I love guys like Zack Fair, Sephiroth (science experiment, but still human born, just kind of an altered human. And I. Couldn't. Play. As. Him!. -rages against the unfairness of it all-), Kefka (-cackles the maniacal laughter of Kefka-), Cecil, Fei Fong Wong, Ryudo the Geohound, Shion Uzuki, Yuri Hyuga, Yuri Lowell, Justin (Grandia), et cetera, et cetera, blah, blah, but honestly, enough with the humans. Can you not see why I'm getting sick of them? There's Just. So. Many!

A game can be successful without human protagonists being shoved down our throats at every turn. In a world like Dragon Age, where once upon a time in a game far, far away, we were able not only to choose how our characters began, but also what race they would be, it's hard to go back to yet another generic human hero you see in almost every game out there. Seriously, I think I might just pass out from the monotony of it all. I can feel it, my eyes are drifting closed, everything is getting hazy!

From the sounds of it they're not even going to do anything really special or inspiring with their brand new generic human protagonist. -sigh-

I'm bored. What was I talking about? Hm . . .

-walks off, still laughing like Kefka and content with the "Strangest Person I've Ever Met' title people always seem to give her-

 

[alphamalet]

Can we please just have the Dragon Age franchise go back to do its own thing?

Bioware Rpg titles does not have to rip off the Mass Effect design. Dragon Age: Origins sold fairly well even though it was vastly different from ME - variety is good, it adds personality to the game, depth and needlessly many conversation options for added replayability. I rather enjoyed playing as a somewhat one-minded Shepard with different moralities, then switching over to The Warden, who could condemn a people to eternal torment, have them fight it out with another group, give them salvation, or leave in indifference or a bloodbath.
Both types of morality, conversations and choice were unique to one another, by Dragon Age 2, they were not even trying to hide someone went into the DA development conference and uttered "So that Mass Affect game has been selling well, what can we transfer into this franchise to copy the succes?".

Both styles are good, but it is the variety that ultimate makes both appealing for different reasons. If not it is boiled down to "Do you want Bioware Game X (Fantasy)? Or Bioware Game X (Sci-Fi)?" instead of "Do you want Rpg X or Rpg Y?".

Now bear in mind, I do not mind the added voice acting all that much, but I swear if I see that conversation wheel again I will have Hawke 2 use the option that makes him/her fry him-/herself alive, in an either benevolent, witty or malevolent tone.

I admire the Dragon Age developer team, but I seriously wanna have their marketing department have an hour long meeting with Renegade Shepard and Hawke, see how well things would work out.

This times a million! I don't really care for Mass Effect, but loved Dragon Age Origins. Both of these games had a very different identity, and like you said, variety is a good thing. Now the line between Dragon age and Mass Effect is blurring more and more. KEEP MASS EFFECT OUT OF MY DRAGON AGE! It's no secret that people loved Dragon Age Origins despite the vast difference between it and Mass Effect.

Rough sales numbers of both games on both consoles (PC not included):
Dragon Age Origins: 3.85 million (an amazing number for a new IP)
Dragon Age II: 1.58 million

How is catering to a "broader audience" working out for you, EA? Let Dragon Age be Dragon Age and let Bioware be Bioware.

 

[SycoMantis91]

I don't trust Bioware all that much anymore. I trust it'll be fun, but I don't trust it to be Bioware quality. Especially with Muzyka and Zeschuk gone. It's basically EA's ***** now.

 

[tzimize]

Despite being only mildly interested in DA3 (I'm more of a ME guy), I can't say this bothers me overmuch.

After all, the super-amazing-fantastic race options in DA:O consisted of human, short thickset human and small human with pointy ears.

...
-snip-

I'm guessing someone pointed it out, but the backgrounds were more than cosmetic. Being a dwarven princess was absolutely amazing, and the different reasons you had for being exiled/on the run/whatever also played into your character. This again makes you think about the choices your character makes in different ways.

Being poor is not the same as being poor and an elf. Being a noble human is not the same as being a part of dwarven society and a noble.

I LOVED the dwarven noble origin in DA:O. I loved how unexpectedly ruthless and dark it was. It colored my dwarven princess for the rest of the game.

DA2. I hated almost everything about it. The party members, the stupid protagonist. The boring city, and the small scope compared to DA:O...it was just a terrible step back.

I am NOT holding my breath for DA3, but seeing as the universe is mildly interesting, I'll probably check it out at least. Most likely through articles first. A pre-order is completely out of the question.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Rough sales numbers of both games on both consoles (PC not included):
Dragon Age Origins: 3.85 million (an amazing number for a new IP)
Dragon Age II: 1.58 million

How is catering to a "broader audience" working out for you, EA? Let Dragon Age be Dragon Age and let Bioware be Bioware.

Oh so DAO did do better, I was wondering about that, funny that they seem to be stubborn and keep going down the DA 2 track.

 

[Knight Templar]

Oh so DAO did do better,

I wonder if it made more money though, since it had a much longer development time.

 

[Baralak]

I loved Dragon Age: Origins, putting hundreds of hours into it, beating it several times, experiencing several different experiences.

I love Dragon Age 2, putting hundreds of hours into it, beating it several times, experiencing several different experiences.

Did I miss the "Origins" of the first during the second? Not at all. Did I appreciate the more involved protagonist though? Most definitely. The first game felt more like a "party sim" while the second felt more like an actual "role-playing game."

One thing I did miss from the first though was how the story influenced which groups helped out during the final battle. It added more of a 'strategic' element. The sequel letting unused party members help out as long as they're on good terms is a nice addition though. "What would you do if I sang out of tune,would you stand up and walk out on me? Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song and I'll try not to sing out of key."

As for this one on the way.. I can't wait to hear more!

I've started replaying 2. I cleared it when it came out. Since then I've cleared origins about 7 times. So I definitely prefer origins but I still like 2. I like the dialog. I like Anders, Varric, Aveline and yes I like Isabella, between setting the slaves free, her reaction to the model ship you give her and coming back at the end of act 2 there's more too her than people give her credit for. But of course if you make an attractive female who likes sex that's a disgrace. Everyone knows real women hate sex.

Sure it's not a big epic story like origins but I liked how it was a person building htheir name over years. And I was ok with the small scope of the game.

Yeah it has lots of problems, reused environments (that is completely unacceptable in a AAA game at full price),spawning enemies and making me tap a repeatedly to attack.

You can actually cut auto-attack back on in the options menu. I keep it off, because I loathe auto-attack in games.

 

[veloper]

The Origins start was the only ambitious feature in Dragon Age. This was a much bigger deal than the actual choice of a player race.

Most RPGs may put a few different ending in a game, but that doesn't give a game that much more replay value (example: in Deus Ex Rev you just reload the save in the button room to see all the endings).
Front loading a game with story branches gives it alot more replay value (that is, if you can stomach the rest of the game ofcourse). Occasionally that stuff even came up again later in the game.

The origins was a laudable feature and I can't think of any game that had anything that big. It's the only reason why I rate DA:O above mediocre.

I can understand why a company might want to cut that expense in a sequel, but it's still a downgrade and DA2 had nothing good to compensate.

Ofcourse what really needs to be fixed is the combat and the encounter design. That stuff was mediocre in the PC version of Origins and downright terrible in the console version and in DA2.

 

[WFox]

It's harder to write a story with a misc. character with a title ("Bhaal Spawn" and "Grey Warden")

Why does everyone think this is EA's sudden doing...

Why is this automatically such a bad thing?

Most of the dialogue choices in the BG series, and in DA led to the same response or were barely worth noticing. For most of DA:O outside of your origin nothing was important. Occasionally you are called knife ears as an elf, you get a slightly different epilogue. It's nice to design your character a bit more but really who cares in terms of what it deducts from the game because you ultimately lose maybe a bit of dialogue. Come on

I'm seeing this argument coming up a lot- That after the origins the rest of the game was the same anyway. Well yeah. It's not like they were making seven different games. For me at least the touches that were there were worth it. Going back to Orzammar as a dwarf Warden wasn't all that different in practical terms then going there as any other Warden, but from a role playing perspective it was a whole new experience. Just like the Arl of Denerim's Estate has a lot more meaning for a human noble Origin than the others.

And more than that, I don't see how DA2 did it better. At the very least Origins made replays slightly different. All DA2 did was let you side with the horrible Templars or the Horrible Mages. And don't get me wrong I enjoyed DA2 but I loved Dragon Age: Origins. The numbers don't lie, those of us who preferred Origins are in the majority. Perhaps those are the numbers Bioware should be looking at rather than how many people played as human.

 

[klaynexas3]

I call bullshit on this post. First off, what the hell would you consider positive news about Dragon Age 3? Everything we have heard sounds less and less like the original and more of an attempt to appeal to a "broader audience" that couldn't appreciate a good RPG if it hit them in the face.

This guy gets it and isn't blinded by a ray of fanboy retard

Ah, I see you're using that special definition of "gets it" which means "agrees with me and only me".

I also like how people who enjoy things you don't are "fanboy retards"! What a well-reasoned and logical point; you don't like the way the Dragon Age series is heading, and since you are the ultimate arbiter of quality, the only person allowed to define what "fun" is and where it can be found, anyone who likes what you don't MUST be mentally defective and/or in denial. You stay classy, buddy.

I'm surprised that he isn't in the Religion and Politics section of the forums, I bet he'd do fine over there with his "I'm right and everyone else is an idiot" mentality. I honestly haven't found a single post by him that isn't rage filled and without any actual points or facts to his arguement, just saying everything is a lie and spewing hate. I wonder if he's also a conspiracy theorist, it would follow his personality.

 

[darlarosa]

It's harder to write a story with a misc. character with a title ("Bhaal Spawn" and "Grey Warden")

Why does everyone think this is EA's sudden doing...

Why is this automatically such a bad thing?

Most of the dialogue choices in the BG series, and in DA led to the same response or were barely worth noticing. For most of DA:O outside of your origin nothing was important. Occasionally you are called knife ears as an elf, you get a slightly different epilogue. It's nice to design your character a bit more but really who cares in terms of what it deducts from the game because you ultimately lose maybe a bit of dialogue. Come on

I'm seeing this argument coming up a lot- That after the origins the rest of the game was the same anyway. Well yeah. It's not like they were making seven different games. For me at least the touches that were there were worth it. Going back to Orzammar as a dwarf Warden wasn't all that different in practical terms then going there as any other Warden, but from a role playing perspective it was a whole new experience. Just like the Arl of Denerim's Estate has a lot more meaning for a human noble Origin than the others.

And more than that, I don't see how DA2 did it better. At the very least Origins made replays slightly different. All DA2 did was let you side with the horrible Templars or the Horrible Mages. And don't get me wrong I enjoyed DA2 but I loved Dragon Age: Origins. The numbers don't lie, those of us who preferred Origins are in the majority. Perhaps those are the numbers Bioware should be looking at rather than how many people played as human.

Never said DA2 did it better, just more consistent.

You're kinda proving my overall point. What is the problem? If the origins and races don't matter as much then there is virtually no matter to complain about necessarily. You can direct Hawke, or ME Shepard in the same directions as you could a Grey Warden or Bhaal spawn really. The difference is you are now aware of how meaningless a lot of the choices those games offered really are. Yes choosing answer X out of 7 may mean something to you or I as a player but that is sentimental. Not saying it's wrong, but it is a sentimental notion.

From the sounds of DA3 the main character will probably be a Templar. That I have no set problems with in terms of you being given a kind of character. By giving set options to choose from it gives the player unique experiences to play through instead of just different dungeons. That said the issue I do have with it is how it is seemingly set up. The situation has always positioned the player as able to help Templars or Mages...to me the nature of what the game seems to lean toward forces the player into a position that he or she may not lean toward without any sense of balance. However that is a different conversation

The problem is that the games are focusing the story on the human experience because for bioware human has ALWAYS been the default. Dwarf does not work well because dwarves are always kind of outsiders outside of their thaigs. Elves...well that one is not as justifiable, but we could assume there is a difficulty in that it is hard to convincingly write an elf coming to a significant position under more ordinary circumstances unless he/she is a grey warden or in a position recognized as more neutral.

I never said I liked DA2 more or that it was better. Never Never. I think it was mediocre game and I understand the choices Bioware made. The problems with DA2 are deeper. This overall discussion and the OP's original post are just distractions. They do not target the real problems of what ultimately made DA2 mediocre in comparison with DA:O. The OP seems to be bemoaning the fact that this has been implemented at all that the system is some how inferior or flawed without an explanation. The notion itself falls apart considering how popular games are that give you a set character. Bioware is giving far more choices than those kind of games usually do. How does setting up a basic position in the world negate or deter or act against your enjoyment of the gaming experience in comparison to being able to choose from several different options? Removing the enjoyment of choice how does this automatically hurt a game.

 

[Shadowsetzer]

I didn't really enjoy DA2 or ME3, so I'll be giving this a "meh" until I see the finished product.

 

[ultrachicken]

Frankly, if they were to put out what essentially amounted to DA2 but with an interesting setting, more than 6 dungeons, and refined the combat's tactical aspect, I would buy it in a heartbeat. I miss being able to play a dwarf, but in Orlais that wouldn't make any sense, in addition to the fact that focusing on one story ? when done right ? is better than having a bunch of other unimportant stories.

 

[Milanezi]

Also, my choices in Dragon Age 2 felt more powerful, I felt like really deciding things, maybe they didn't have actual gameplay impact

Yep. You made "powerful choices" that had no impact on anything. That's Dragon Age 2 in a nutshell.

But I agree with you, however, what game does allow for REAL impact? Because Dragon Age Origins didn't do it either. All we can get is a "sense" of impact, the game can trick you into thinking you're in control, but all in all, you never are, because, well, it's a game and any thing you choose will lead the game to one of many paths (or sometimes one single path, anyway), but fact is, it's all there before you chose, written by someone else, and being able to choose from two sides of a coin doesn't change the fact that maybe you want NOT to toss the coin at all because there are trillions of options you could go for (if it was a "real life situation") but it's a scripted game, it will be. So there will also never be real freedom of choice, or moral standings as far as the game is concerned.
However, it CAN impact the GAMER.

Spoiler

The choice where that crazy mage chose to blow up a tower, was amazing in my opinion, and it had a hell of an impact for me: the nice characterization of Hawke made me feel like I was in control of his personality, I didn't make him, or his backbone story, but his personality was MINE. So I spent a lot of time helping that asshole mage in many ways, I agreed with him in most ways, damn I trusted that bastard... And then he showed up and revealed he would blow up the tower. And that's where I drew my line in the sand, that's where I, GAMER IN CONTROL OF HAWKE'S PERSONALITY, infused my real-life beliefs into the game, and said "No. I'm not helping, as a matter of fact I'll do what I can to stop you"... True enough in terms of THE GAME that choice doesn't matter, because agreeing or not doesn't change the fact that he placed the bomb and that it WILL explode, it's only your character's moral standing that matters.

And just like in real life, many times what we want, unfortunately, doesn't mean we can do something about it. having a given moral ground doesn't give us enough power, by itself, to stop or alter certain events, mostly the events that are of bigger scope.
In the end, Dragon Age Origins didn't give me the feeling I was molding the story (but no games do, so I won't bash it for it), but it failed to give me the sense that I was imprinting my character with my values (be them real-life values or not, doesn't matter, as long as you can migrate a personality of your choosing, of your creation, into the game); whereas Dragon Age 2 really made me feel like I was controlling Hawke's personality (even though the character per se, was not created by me).

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

It's harder to write a story with a misc. character with a title ("Bhaal Spawn" and "Grey Warden")

Why does everyone think this is EA's sudden doing...

Why is this automatically such a bad thing?

Most of the dialogue choices in the BG series, and in DA led to the same response or were barely worth noticing. For most of DA:O outside of your origin nothing was important. Occasionally you are called knife ears as an elf, you get a slightly different epilogue. It's nice to design your character a bit more but really who cares in terms of what it deducts from the game because you ultimately lose maybe a bit of dialogue. Come on

It is the equivilant of cutting the chocolate ration in 1984. That is what the industry is doing.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Oh so DAO did do better,

I wonder if it made more money though, since it had a much longer development time.

Yeah DA 2 was really halfa$$ed, they probably made more per sold but what that is.

I call bullshit on this post. First off, what the hell would you consider positive news about Dragon Age 3? Everything we have heard sounds less and less like the original and more of an attempt to appeal to a "broader audience" that couldn't appreciate a good RPG if it hit them in the face.

This guy gets it and isn't blinded by a ray of fanboy retard

Ah, I see you're using that special definition of "gets it" which means "agrees with me and only me".

I also like how people who enjoy things you don't are "fanboy retards"! What a well-reasoned and logical point; you don't like the way the Dragon Age series is heading, and since you are the ultimate arbiter of quality, the only person allowed to define what "fun" is and where it can be found, anyone who likes what you don't MUST be mentally defective and/or in denial. You stay classy, buddy.

I'm surprised that he isn't in the Religion and Politics section of the forums, I bet he'd do fine over there with his "I'm right and everyone else is an idiot" mentality. I honestly haven't found a single post by him that isn't rage filled and without any actual points or facts to his arguement, just saying everything is a lie and spewing hate. I wonder if he's also a conspiracy theorist, it would follow his personality.

Well if you really want to know I'm an evolutionist/ Anti-theist and I don't debate Religious people very often for the same reason I don't debate people who think the moon is made out of cheese. Oh and Ha ha republicans you lost.