Maria Caliban

I guess I cansee why guys would find this funny.

I've played what many consider to be some of the best cRPGs, but I it's rare for me to complete or replay them.

Alanschu, What origin did you use? I agree it won

Right. Number of people who try several origins > Number of people who will complete the game. But that doesn't support his next sentence: "It's wasted development time in todays casual market." By his logic, having only one origin and more content in the middle is the wasted development time. For example, say we have a BioWare title with 80 hours of gameplay, of which 5 of those are the beginning with the rest of the game being 75 hours. Max installs, plays through 30 hours and then quits half way though. Now we have a BioWare tite with six origins at 5 hours each (30 hours), with the rest of the game being 50 hours. Max tries three origins but still finished somewhere in the middle. Max plays more of the game this way. Unless you're suggesting that Max will only play 30 hours altogether, then it doesn't matter if BioWare does it one way or the other. But I think that's what BioWare is going for at all. There are people who will play the game once, those who'll never complete it, and people who'll play the game several times. The frist two might not play the entire game more than once, but they might play through several of the origins, and they have unique content.

Multiple origins was one of the first features they talked about, along with battling in the middle of a giant army. I'm not sure what you mean, the first sentence doesn't seem to support the second. If more people will check out the origins than will go through the entire game, then having several origins would be the way to go. Yes? Even I have a high bar than that for them.

Yes, if you have an elf, you have to play a city or dalish elf. The thing is though, that is *normal* for elves in this setting. If you're a city elf, you're bottom of the barrel and noble humans can piss on you if they want. If you were a city elf and had a happy, healthy life surrounded by respectful humans then that would be abnormal. The dalish elves live apart from human settlements for a reason. (several, really) That said, I understand how the six origins could disappoint people if they didn

On the very first FAQ BioWare offered five years ago they said you could play a wandering barbarian, a dwarven prince, or enslave nations with your necromancy. This was back when it was planned as a PC exclusive with different campaigns for single and multiplayer.

Yes, a human noble can be male or female, a warrior or rogue.

There's no cRPG in which you can make a choice outside whatever suits the author of the game.

I'd like to add, I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer sandbox games or games that don't give you a background at all. Neither approch is better, but I definately prefer what BioWare is doing than to something like the Elder Scrolls.

I already said that IWD didn't impose a background on you. However, you couldn't play a gnome barbarian in BG because you'd spent the entirety of your life in the comfortable walls of Candlekeep. You could however have pink hair and blue skin, so I guess Dragon Age truly has robbed you of the ability to create your own character. You could forget you were a child of Bhaal in BG? If you could do that, then you can forget that you're a human lord or a city elf in Dragon Age. If you

BIOWARE GAME SPOILERS When you say

BG had one origin. Planescape Torment had one origin. Fallout had one origin. The 'wandering adventurer with no backstory imposed upon you' was done in NWN and it added nothing to the game. Neverwinter Night 2 had one origins. Arcanum had a dozen backstories that have you +2 a skill but had no effect on the game. What series are you comparing Dragon Age to that gave you more choices in terms of background?

How is he weird?

Black Whirlwind is a deeply underappreciated character. That said, I don't know how to type Sten yet. Mary Kirby wrote him, and this is the first BioWare game she's done. Whenever she talks about character action, it's mostly in the form of jokes.

*cough*cheat code*cough*

Umm...jamaican trolls with guns? That's the stuff of awesomeness. I did like what WoW did with its trolls. I got more that they were militant religious fanatics. The Klingons killed their gods and the Aiel weren't all that pious. They're more like the Fremen after Mu'habib got to them. However, they're more technologically advanced than the inhabitants of Thedas.

What about the qunari? They're a race from the north (where it's tropical), they have basic gunpowder and follow a spiritual practice similar to Buddhism. What race do you think they're like?

Wait... I get the feeling someone is trying to tell me that the Doctors have worked on a game.

It's adherence to the tropes and styles of its given genre.

You know after a while that is pretty much what Diablo 2 degenerated into. Baal runs and trading. It got to the point on my spare days I would be trading or Baal running 50 times, sometimes I throw in a cow run somewhere in there. Most of the time you just refreshed the join games list over and over looking for decent trades. The worse were the rune words I dunno why but rune grinding to make uber rune words was extremely addictive, that and trying to get Elite items with the right number of sockets. In a way the whole experience (and the ruination of my childhood in conjunction with the original Diablo) immunized me to MMORPGs, I find no MMORPG fun because they are all just Diablo 2 style baal runs with more people and social interaction, and maybe more or less ****. I'm having flashbacks here. Those runs existed on top of an already solid game though. World of Warcraft often feels like it's nothing but looting and grinding. Do you believe that Diablo III should offer that type of 'endless' content? A sort of OCD endgame that's isn't so much fun as it is a compulsion? How much energy above and beyond regular gameplay should a player have to expend before they can have the best of the best?

The crux, sir, of the argument. More than the optimists think, I fear. Or maybe the optimists like romance and cut-scenes? It's a thought.

Awww... *hugs* I've been watching this game with cautious optimism. Divine Divinity was rollicking good fun, except for a ponderously overdone and boring final chapter. It was an old-style game that didn't take itself too seriously. Their next game, Beyond Divinity, was a real let down. I couldn't even finish it. It took itself TOO seriously, and lost the element of fun. Dull. Dark. Boring. Poorly executed. So I'm not sure what to expect for DD2. Hoping for the best... I'll probably look for some player feedback before I buy this time. The real problem with Beyond Divinity was not the setting. Yes, the backdrop was dark, but actual gameplay had tons of comedy built in. The problems, IMO, were the linear storyline and the battlefields. After the beginning of Divine Divinity, you were free to go pretty much wherever you wanted. This could lead to your death, but there was enough content spread over the map to make it enjoyable. Beyond Divinity was a series of small maps you cleared one after the other after the other as you followed the plot breadcrumbs. Those breadcrumbs didn't make the most sense either. Here I am on the run from a powerful demon and trying to free myself from a soulbond and I spend an entire chapter helping imps stabilize their economy and political structure. The other horrible feature was the Battlefields. Yes, DD has Diablo elements, but the battlefields were just semi-mandatory Diablo rip-offs. I recall at the end of one dungeon was a single room with a giant spider in it I had to kill. Of course I couldn

I'd point out that when it comes to addictive loot grinding, the Diablo series has always been top of the heap. I can't wait for D3 to come out.

I'm sure there will be a thread just for people's impressions of Dragon Age: Origins. Wait a week and you'll get tons of opinions on the game itself.