Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Orogun01]

Looks good, will preorder instead of Twitcher 3.

I trust CD Project more than BW at this point, specially after DA2. I will say this though, Its looking better than what I expected let's hope that it carries throughout the game.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I will preorder neither, and only buy them if sources I trust confirm that they are of suitable quality.

[Maria Caliban]

The extra year of development is what's allowing them to add non-human PC races. As they've always hinted there's an 'open world,' it's possible the horses were already in.

 

I'll add that I still don't see this as being Skyrim level open world. Perhaps it's like the horses in AC 2.

 

As I haven't seen it posted, here's a summary of the article itself as provided by a BSN poster.

 

shinobi602 wrote...

• Wants to make the action less frantic and more deliberate, returning to more tactics-oriented approach to encounters. Big return to party-based tactics
• Part of that is slowing down speed of attacks, more important is designing enemies that force you to examine the battlefield and choose actions carefully
• Battles veer away from button mashing toward a structure where observation and reaction take precedence
• Instead of swarming enemies, your foes have specialized roles; work together and force you to size up the battlefield
• You won’t regularly see waves of new bad guys appearing out of nowhere to extend encounters
• PC gamers getting an optimized version; “PC actually is different, especially from a controls standpoint”, trying to “recapture the very tailored experience of DA:O on PC”
• Going from Eastern Ferelden to Western Orlais; repetitive environments are nowhere to be found in DAI like in DA2.
• Players aren’t just funneled down narrow corridors, the demo showed a bog, desert, a mountain range, all enormous and freely explored in third person.
• Lots of hidden things to find, caves, dungeons, corpses, etc that create other unique sidequests
• “Trying to drive exploration- something that frankly, Bioware hasn’t done in a while.” “In a way like Baldur’s Gate, areas that existed in part just to spaces that you went to, but they had a story of their own.”
• Want to make sure there a sufficient number of caves in the game that are each unique, and optional. If you have a mage in your group, you can use a spell to reassemble a crumbled bridge to reach a new area.
• Can also restore a ruined desert outpost into an Inquisition stronghold
• So much ground to cover that mounted creatures are implemented
• Monsters, and dragons for example, do not level up with you. Some are vastly more powerful, forcing you to come back later with proper experience
• Some environmental destructibility
• Warrior class has grappling chain that can pull enemies in close
• Enemy scenario: Fighting a massive, armored dragon, you can target a leg, send warrior into melee range to bash off armor, rogue can sneak up and poison the exposed limb, dragon stumbles around allowing others to unleash spells etc
• Weather effects can impact exploration, ex. Rainfall, desert sandstorms
• Rainy weather can make areas muddy, slowing down your traversal/agility in combat, while sandstorms can inflict damage causing you to seek shelter
• A new mage joins your party, Vivienne
• Both Varric and Cassandra also join you
• Working hard to make large areas interesting; slopes, rocks, elevations and your character has tailored animations for overcoming each. Ease of movement key.
• Morrigan is not a party member; not a cameo role though
• Collect resources/materials and craft armor for you and all your party members; heavy emphasis on customization
• Each armor retains a certain iconic look, but looks different on each character. They want the squadmates to each have an iconic look, but customize armor to tailor to each while retaining elements of that iconic look
• 3 classes to choose from of course: Warrior, rogue, and mage
• At least 3 races to choose from; when asked about Qunari, Mike Laidlaw says “Do we go to four? I don’t know. Definitely these are the safe bet”.
• Your racial choice colors your interactions with others; for example elves may be persecuted in some parts, but an enclave of elves is more likely to open up to one of their own.
• Chantry/Templars don’t respect your Inquisition, you have “persuade” them through your own means. You can come across a fortress and if refused entry, you can lay siege to it and break down the doors. What you do from there is your choice.
• Hinting that you have a base of operations, maybe a castle to call your own
• Dialogue wheel returns, but the team has focused a lot on making the selections accurate to what your character says. They’ve now added an optional addition to the wheel that gives you better idea of what to expect
• A lot of loose ends will be resolved in the story; expect full resolutions to things like Red Lyrium, the activities of the Grey Wardens, and Flemeth, and also Morrigan
• Working very hard to ensure your saves/decisions will carry over to next-gen consoles

[Malcador]

Well, obvious PR lies aside that list does have interesting stuff in it. The weather effects, for example.

[Maria Caliban]

Humans-

 

 

Elves-

 

 

Dwarves-

 

Edited August 7, 2013 by Maria Caliban

[Gorth]

You can come across a fortress and if refused entry, you can lay siege to it and break down the doors.

In French Orlesian accent: "Go away or I shall taunt you a second time..."

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

That list does actually sound pretty good, I'm just wondering how much of it will be implemented in a way I enjoy.

[licketysplit]

It seems promising, for a high fantasy game..

 

*sniff*

 

Seriously though, I want it to be good, but I've long since lost interest in Bioware. We'll see if EA was squeezing their nuts to meet a deadline or perhaps this time the team had a bit of creative leeway.

[BruceVC]

I will preorder neither, and only buy them if sources I trust confirm that they are of suitable quality.

 

Kaine I am going to vouch for this game, that should be enough for you to confirm the quality?

[Orogun01]

Humans-

 

 

Elves-

 

 

Dwarves-

 

 

These are some good looking sculpts, at least from afar. Hopefully the textures will match the style.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I will preorder neither, and only buy them if sources I trust confirm that they are of suitable quality.

 

 

Kaine I am going to vouch for this game, that should be enough for you to confirm the quality?

No.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I will preorder neither, and only buy them if sources I trust confirm that they are of suitable quality.

 

Kaine I am going to vouch for this game, that should be enough for you to confirm the quality?

No.

 

 

Difficult crowd, okay I'll wait till I play the game before I give it a ringing endorsement

[ManifestedISO]

 

PC gamers getting an optimized version; “PC actually is different, especially from a controls standpoint”, trying to “recapture the very tailored experience of DA:O on PC”

 

40 gig download, bring it.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, at the speed of my internet, 40 gigs would take about 5 days. No problem, I'll play the console version while I wait. 

[Undecaf]

Grand promises, once again. I wish I had any remote interest towards this, but as it happens Bioware instils this same "I know well enough what's to come" feelings of indifference as Bethesda, to even really consider an excitement. Shame.

[alanschu]

 

 

Sorry Alan, but this sounds like the EA 'party line' when criticized. A pure deflection. "We got voted worst company in America because of homophobes!". It took two awards in a row to get a whimper of an admission that maybe there was a little more to the 'awards' than just being pro-LGBT. I would not have reacted to your post if you had simply said "in part" rather than "in large part".

 

Peter Moore's comments didn't say "We won this award because of homophobes."

 

What he was addressing with that aspect, however, were the campaigns by anti-gay individuals that were feeding the poll simply because their games had gay characters as something they weren't going to change.  So if your reason for voting for EA was because of that, well tough.  For instance, you can find people directing traffic for an anti-gay agenda here.

 

 

Peter's comments can be found here

 

Quick snippet (emphasis mine)

 

Some of these complaints are 100 percent legitimate – like all large companies we are not perfect. But others just don’t hold water:

• Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme.  It’s not.  People still want to argue about it.  We can’t be any clearer – it’s not. Period.
• Some claim there’s no room for Origin as a competitor to Steam.  45 million registered users are proving that wrong.
• Some people think that free-to-play games and micro-transactions are a pox on gaming.  Tens of millions more are playing and loving those games.
• We’ve seen mailing lists that direct people to vote for EA because they disagree with the choice of the cover athlete on Madden NFL. Yes, really…
• In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT characters in our games.  This week, we’re seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America.

That last one is particularly telling.  If that’s what makes us the worst company, bring it on.  Because we're not caving on that.

 

We are committed to fixing our mistakes.  Over the last three weeks, 900,000 SimCity players took us up on a free game offer for their troubles.  We owed them that.  We’re constantly listening to feedback from our players, through our Customer Experience group, Twitter, this blog, or other sites.  The feedback is vital, and impacts the decisions we make.

 

See, people see the list and go "you're just making excuses."  It IS certainly PR damage control, but what his list is saying is, if this is why you think EA is the Worst Company in America, then we find your complaints invalid.

 

So now ask yourself, do you feel that EA is the Worst Company in America because of anything on that list?  Particularly the last one since it's such a heated topic in US Politics at the moment.

 

 

Things like SimCity's launch are certainly much more valid reasons for a customer to be dissatisfied with EA.  Or even policies such as Day One DLC (although I never understood why a gamer that wants a game wouldn't wait until the game + DLC was at a cost that they found acceptable and just paid for it then).  If you're voting for EA as the Worst Company in America because you felt their service with a game like SimCity was subpar, THEN FINE.  You're welcome to your opinion and are free to voice it however you may like.

 

A lot of people do play free to play games.  I can understand if people feel that a game with MTX is too nickle and dimey, or perhaps that the game feels compromised without the MTX.  But the mere existence of them?  As long as we're still getting games that we want, I couldn't give two hoots about a F2P game that I'm not playing.  It's not different than a standard game I'm not playing.  If you're voting for EA as the Worst Company in America because you don't like MTX in games?  Meh.  Don't play them, and don't buy them.

 

Origin?  Dislike that our PC games come with Origin?  Well, unfortunately (as evidenced by Steam doing so with a not too popular game like Half-Life 2, as well as Counterstrike and the like), it's a good way to promote adoption.  There are also huge advantages (as I'm sure Valve acknowledges too) in terms of margins by people adopting and eventually utilizing said platform.  Although you can still buy boxed copies of games through Origin as well, if you prefer.  It's a different delivery mechanism, and one that helps mitigate a lot of risk.  Heck, maybe if the EA as a game publisher haters get lucky, EA will pull a Valve and realize that releasing games isn't actually the best thing for business anymore!

 

Voting EA as Worst Company in America because of a Madden cover?  While I haven't seen this, it honestly wouldn't surprise me.  If people WERE voting for this reason, I certainly don't consider it meaningful feedback.

 

And finally, voting for EA as Worst Company in America because they're making attempts at being more inclusive in their gaming?  If this is what makes you vote for EA, then I (Allan Schumacher) don't care for your reason for voting either.

 

 

Though on a personal level, I wouldn't have bothered addressing said poll in any capacity.  I don't find it particularly scientific, and didn't feel it said anything more that wasn't already being said elsewhere.  I do feel, however, that it undermined gaming as a hobby and passion.  Though for some people, I think that they prefer it that way because any sort of "concession" for people that like different things is seen as a cost for some people, meaning getting less of what they want.  But there are certainly swaths of geek culture that actually prefer their exclusive status.  In some cases it almost seems like people feel "because I was picked on mercilessly for my geeky hobby, anyone that isn't also subjected to said treatment is not as pure as I am, and I will in fact pay it forward by often demonstrating the same demeaning behaviour that was perpetrated upon me."  (General geek culture rant at this point).

[alanschu]

Here's the thing though: she is not a real person, so "because she wants to be" is not a real reason.  I get that they gave her motivation and backstory and she's a modern (medieval) independent woman in control of her sexuality, but the reality - like, in the real world, reality - is that she is a video game character.  And as a video game character, in a game played mostly by men, many of whom will never finish the game or pay much attention to her backstory, she is a scantily-clad woman who has big boobs and talks about having sex A LOT.

So? None of the characters are real, and if your suggestion is that we should cater MORE to the mostly men that will not pay attention to her backstory nor even finish the game....

 

I am not saying such a character should not exist or cannot exist,

You really seem to be giving this impression, however.

 

 

But, fundamentally, you can't get around the fact that her function in the game is more sexual object for the player than sexual being.  She reads to the player as "the one with the boobs who likes sex."

I, as a gamer, disagree. At which point, who's responsibility is it for not looking deeper? If you want to go full on social justice warrior, how many people have judged us for our geeky hobbies without looking deeper. In high school I loved video games and basketball... I would suspect it's no surprise that the basketball player was the more visible character for my peers. Why is this different "because we're real people" and at what point is it a moment of self-reflection.

 

Even if a character reads as "the one who likes sex," part of me just straight up reverts to: "So what?"

 

Bioware is trying to have their cake and eat it too with this character by subverting expectations - but those expectations are never actually subverted.  She basically still *is* that superficial character the player imagined. You can tell the player "Well, but it's HER wanting sex, not you" but this is meaningless in a game where you essentially control the outcome.  All of the potential romantic partners in any Bioware game "want" the player to the same degree as any other - that is, to the degree the player selects the "heart" dialogue choice.

As you find my defense "it's a part of her character" weak, I have to admit I find the "she isn't a real person" not particularly compelling either. What you have said to me is that "A woman that likes to, and wants to have sex, is still just the superficial character and accomplishes nothing. Since she's not a real person, " So, how does one add a character that likes to, and wants to have sex? I'm not even thinking for men or for women.

 

This idea could work, maybe, in a game where you didn't have one single PC avatar and you were controlling (or not controlling) all of the characters equally.  But in the traditional Bioware cRPG formula, Isabela still reads (to me at least) as a pretty awful presence in the game.

Isabella didn't work for you, that's going to happen which . Should we not write her for the people that DO like her character, and did involve her backstory? Again, it comes back to: should we NOT add game content simply because some people may superficially gloss over it?

 

If so, isn't that exactly why we hang out on Obsidian's message boards, because we want them to make games that are not glossed over and explore things that many people couldn't be arsed with?

[alanschu]

Anyways, my rants aside >.>
 

 

Again, never played the DA franchise, but didn't health used to autoregen after each encounter and you couldn't really die (just take a knee), like they are now doing in PE? I wonder why they changed that model. Can you die now in DA?

Yes it regenerated. You could "die" when the entire party fell before. I don't anticipate that changing.

 

I wouldn't expect the general party wipe mechanics to change a whole lot. I could see "injuries" staying at the forefront.


Health regen leads to different types of combat encounters. With health regen, the idea of a purely "fluff" combat is effectively a complete waste of time.  So more emphasis happens on combat encounters that will at least pose some level of threat to the party.

 

Without health regen, smaller scale combats still become viable and a "simple" combat encounter can still incur some level of cost because a player that gets through it flawlessly is rewarded with better adventuring endurance (no need to spend resources on healing).

 

I don't think one or the other is necessarily superior, but it just means a different type of mechanic and a different emphasis for the combat systems and encounters.

[BruceVC]

 

Here's the thing though: she is not a real person, so "because she wants to be" is not a real reason.  I get that they gave her motivation and backstory and she's a modern (medieval) independent woman in control of her sexuality, but the reality - like, in the real world, reality - is that she is a video game character.  And as a video game character, in a game played mostly by men, many of whom will never finish the game or pay much attention to her backstory, she is a scantily-clad woman who has big boobs and talks about having sex A LOT.

So? None of the characters are real, and if your suggestion is that we should cater MORE to the mostly men that will not pay attention to her backstory nor even finish the game....

 

I am not saying such a character should not exist or cannot exist,

You really seem to be giving this impression, however.

 

 

But, fundamentally, you can't get around the fact that her function in the game is more sexual object for the player than sexual being.  She reads to the player as "the one with the boobs who likes sex."

I, as a gamer, disagree. At which point, who's responsibility is it for not looking deeper? If you want to go full on social justice warrior, how many people have judged us for our geeky hobbies without looking deeper. In high school I loved video games and basketball... I would suspect it's no surprise that the basketball player was the more visible character for my peers. Why is this different "because we're real people" and at what point is it a moment of self-reflection.

 

Even if a character reads as "the one who likes sex," part of me just straight up reverts to: "So what?"

 

Bioware is trying to have their cake and eat it too with this character by subverting expectations - but those expectations are never actually subverted.  She basically still *is* that superficial character the player imagined. You can tell the player "Well, but it's HER wanting sex, not you" but this is meaningless in a game where you essentially control the outcome.  All of the potential romantic partners in any Bioware game "want" the player to the same degree as any other - that is, to the degree the player selects the "heart" dialogue choice.

As you find my defense "it's a part of her character" weak, I have to admit I find the "she isn't a real person" not particularly compelling either. What you have said to me is that "A woman that likes to, and wants to have sex, is still just the superficial character and accomplishes nothing. Since she's not a real person, " So, how does one add a character that likes to, and wants to have sex? I'm not even thinking for men or for women.

 

This idea could work, maybe, in a game where you didn't have one single PC avatar and you were controlling (or not controlling) all of the characters equally.  But in the traditional Bioware cRPG formula, Isabela still reads (to me at least) as a pretty awful presence in the game.

Isabella didn't work for you, that's going to happen which . Should we not write her for the people that DO like her character, and did involve her backstory? Again, it comes back to: should we NOT add game content simply because some people may superficially gloss over it?

 

If so, isn't that exactly why we hang out on Obsidian's message boards, because we want them to make games that are not glossed over and explore things that many people couldn't be arsed with?

 

 

Well said Alan, I agree 100 %

 

QFT !!!

[alanschu]

 

I was waiting for someone to point out a probably heartfelt plea from BSN.

 

 

Sorry Monte, but that request comes straight from good old ObsBoards! 

 

 

 

 

Irregardless....

 

AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

 

 

of the schedule money its still being paid to employees during the development of ports, if you want to compare their production pipelines then you should do that. As far as the developers and the publisher is concerned they are still working. That's the only reason I'm giving you a hard time over your statement.

 

Purely speculative on my part, but BioWare was sold twice during DAO's development.  I often wondered if more money went into it than was comfortable.  I have no clue though as I joined the project right on the tail end.

 

 

 

 

In French Orlesian accent: "Go away or I shall taunt you a second time..."

 

I prefer to not give the stuffy Orelsians a chance to taunt at all!

[Malekith]

Anyways, my rants aside >.>

 

 

Again, never played the DA franchise, but didn't health used to autoregen after each encounter and you couldn't really die (just take a knee), like they are now doing in PE? I wonder why they changed that model. Can you die now in DA?

Yes it regenerated. You could "die" when the entire party fell before. I don't anticipate that changing.

 

I wouldn't expect the general party wipe mechanics to change a whole lot. I could see "injuries" staying at the forefront.

 

 

Health regen leads to different types of combat encounters. With health regen, the idea of a purely "fluff" combat is effectively a complete waste of time.  So more emphasis happens on combat encounters that will at least pose some level of threat to the party.

 

Without health regen, smaller scale combats still become viable and a "simple" combat encounter can still incur some level of cost because a player that gets through it flawlessly is rewarded with better adventuring endurance (no need to spend resources on healing).

 

 

This sounds awfully close to the endless waves of trash combat both DA:O and DA2 suffered from. I hope DA:I will move away from this formula.

Attrition can work, but you need more variety of enemies to make it interesting. In DA games, the enemy types are so few and bland similar to each other that the whole attrition idea becomes just a chore.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

• Going from Eastern Ferelden to Western Orlais

 

 

I sincerely hope it doesn't mean that now everybody will speak with that horrible, horrible accent.

[Nepenthe]

Slowing down combat.... .

 

That's what the pause is there for, ffs.

 

Apart from that, am entusiastic. And probably required to buy a new pc.

[kirottu]

Combat itself was better in DA2. It was the encounter design(endless usage of waves) that was bad imo.

[Malcador]

 

Sorry Alan, but this sounds like the EA 'party line' when criticized. A pure deflection. "We got voted worst company in America because of homophobes!". It took two awards in a row to get a whimper of an admission that maybe there was a little more to the 'awards' than just being pro-LGBT. I would not have reacted to your post if you had simply said "in part" rather than "in large part".

 

Peter Moore's comments didn't say "We won this award because of homophobes."

 

What he was addressing with that aspect, however, were the campaigns by anti-gay individuals that were feeding the poll simply because their games had gay characters as something they weren't going to change.  So if your reason for voting for EA was because of that, well tough.  For instance, you can find people directing traffic for an anti-gay agenda here.

 

 

Peter's comments can be found here

 

Quick snippet (emphasis mine)

 

Some of these complaints are 100 percent legitimate – like all large companies we are not perfect. But others just don’t hold water:

• Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme.  It’s not.  People still want to argue about it.  We can’t be any clearer – it’s not. Period.
• Some claim there’s no room for Origin as a competitor to Steam.  45 million registered users are proving that wrong.
• Some people think that free-to-play games and micro-transactions are a pox on gaming.  Tens of millions more are playing and loving those games.
• We’ve seen mailing lists that direct people to vote for EA because they disagree with the choice of the cover athlete on Madden NFL. Yes, really…
• In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT characters in our games.  This week, we’re seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America.

That last one is particularly telling.  If that’s what makes us the worst company, bring it on.  Because we're not caving on that.

 

We are committed to fixing our mistakes.  Over the last three weeks, 900,000 SimCity players took us up on a free game offer for their troubles.  We owed them that.  We’re constantly listening to feedback from our players, through our Customer Experience group, Twitter, this blog, or other sites.  The feedback is vital, and impacts the decisions we make.

 

 

See, people see the list and go "you're just making excuses."  It IS certainly PR damage control, but what his list is saying is, if this is why you think EA is the Worst Company in America, then we find your complaints invalid.

 

So now ask yourself, do you feel that EA is the Worst Company in America because of anything on that list?  Particularly the last one since it's such a heated topic in US Politics at the moment.

 

 

Things like SimCity's launch are certainly much more valid reasons for a customer to be dissatisfied with EA.  Or even policies such as Day One DLC (although I never understood why a gamer that wants a game wouldn't wait until the game + DLC was at a cost that they found acceptable and just paid for it then).  If you're voting for EA as the Worst Company in America because you felt their service with a game like SimCity was subpar, THEN FINE.  You're welcome to your opinion and are free to voice it however you may like.

 

A lot of people do play free to play games.  I can understand if people feel that a game with MTX is too nickle and dimey, or perhaps that the game feels compromised without the MTX.  But the mere existence of them?  As long as we're still getting games that we want, I couldn't give two hoots about a F2P game that I'm not playing.  It's not different than a standard game I'm not playing.  If you're voting for EA as the Worst Company in America because you don't like MTX in games?  Meh.  Don't play them, and don't buy them.

 

Origin?  Dislike that our PC games come with Origin?  Well, unfortunately (as evidenced by Steam doing so with a not too popular game like Half-Life 2, as well as Counterstrike and the like), it's a good way to promote adoption.  There are also huge advantages (as I'm sure Valve acknowledges too) in terms of margins by people adopting and eventually utilizing said platform.  Although you can still buy boxed copies of games through Origin as well, if you prefer.  It's a different delivery mechanism, and one that helps mitigate a lot of risk.  Heck, maybe if the EA as a game publisher haters get lucky, EA will pull a Valve and realize that releasing games isn't actually the best thing for business anymore!

 

Voting EA as Worst Company in America because of a Madden cover?  While I haven't seen this, it honestly wouldn't surprise me.  If people WERE voting for this reason, I certainly don't consider it meaningful feedback.

 

And finally, voting for EA as Worst Company in America because they're making attempts at being more inclusive in their gaming?  If this is what makes you vote for EA, then I (Allan Schumacher) don't care for your reason for voting either.

 

 

Though on a personal level, I wouldn't have bothered addressing said poll in any capacity.  I don't find it particularly scientific, and didn't feel it said anything more that wasn't already being said elsewhere.  I do feel, however, that it undermined gaming as a hobby and passion.  Though for some people, I think that they prefer it that way because any sort of "concession" for people that like different things is seen as a cost for some people, meaning getting less of what they want.  But there are certainly swaths of geek culture that actually prefer their exclusive status.  In some cases it almost seems like people feel "because I was picked on mercilessly for my geeky hobby, anyone that isn't also subjected to said treatment is not as pure as I am, and I will in fact pay it forward by often demonstrating the same demeaning behaviour that was perpetrated upon me."  (General geek culture rant at this point).

 

"In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT characters in our games. This week, we’re seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America.

 

That last one is particularly telling. If that’s what makes us the worst company, bring it on. Because we're not caving on that."

 

Hm, pretty much trying to highlight that out of the list. It's 'telling', after all. I guess company men do exist, after all.

 

 

Also, the male elf's got one stoned out expression, but still they look cool. Assuming I get around to DA2, not looking forward to downloading this, as I guess it'll be MP3 size or worse

Edited August 7, 2013 by Malcador

[Humanoid]

The female human looks like an elf and the female dwarf looks like a human, I'd say.