Dragon Age News Thread

I don't necessarily think reducing the number of romances would mean that they'd all be tied in with the plot. DAO had four, DA2 had four (plus DLC Sebastian) and there are only like one or two in each of those games that are widely considered "plot-relevant". Plus it'd mean making everyone bisexual with no gay or straight people in sight.

But my favorite romances are Sera, Fenris, and Zevran and they all feel essential to me in their respective games. Them not being the King of Ferelden or the mother of my OGB or blowing up a Chantry never made them feel less relevant in my eyes.

Are those millions of dollars paying equivalent salaries? Or does CDPR get more people for the buck? Er, zloty.

Wait, what? It is?

Oh, please no. Other than Bastila in KOTOR, my favorite romance in any of the Bioware games I have played have not been among the LIs "intertwined with the main narrative". Plus if they only did three romances then there goes any chance of any of there being the kind of romance I want being in the game. 

I’m sorely tempted to print this out and wave it at all the tech companies that are dead-set on forcing all their hires to relocate to the main office (usually someplace with high cost of living).

Then they proceed to complain about how, for utterly mysterious reasons, they’re having trouble making money.

It's not something that matters to me at all. I just want to like the NPC a whole bunch. However, having a follower LI is pretty important to me; I quite like the idea of going on adventures with my love.


Yepper. Allan Schumacher said as much for the DAI romance reveal:

It seems the fewer romance there are, the greater the likelihood we get all-bi romances. While that would make some folks happy, I prefer the set sexualities. Just because there are LIs available, doesn't mean a given player is going to like them. I had 4 f/m LIs available to me and I ended up going with the gay dude. That's just how things worked out. I don't romance anyone in DAO, and that's how things work out in that game.

One other thing to keep in mind — in places where there are fewer tech workers, tech salaries can be dramatically lower while still offering the same quality of life.

When the local economy has fewer tech workers, they don’t have to compete with a bunch of other tech workers when it comes to buying houses and food. So they only look for a salary that’s slightly higher than the local average, rather than getting into an arms race to keep up with rising costs.

This is part of why I’d love to see tech spread out more. When it’s all concentrated in one spot, no one wins. The non-tech workers get priced out of everything, and even tech gets caught in this destructive spiral of higher and higher salaries so they don’t get priced out of everything. Meanwhile service workers are basically driven out entirely, stripping out all the amenities that might have attracted people to that location.

I’ve worked in areas with lots of other tech workers, and areas with fewer. The people who’ve only worked in “popular” areas have no idea how much the situation has deteriorated.

Love it.

Dragon Age 2 was misunderstood? That's news to me. I'm fairly certain the majority of players "got it", and I'm also certain a sizeable chunk of the community "didn't want it". Not much else to say *shrugs*

As much as I like DA2, I don't think being "misunderstood" was its problem. It suffered terribly from lack of development time, which is plainly obvious to anyone who plays it. Considering what they had to work with, it's a fantastic effort and the end result IS good with those limitations.

You have fans who like a more personal story vs fans who want a sprawling epic; that is down to personal taste. Even now, after DAI, there are some saying that they want a more personal story. But the limited scope and being confined to Kirkwall, the recycled environments, the fetch quests that amounted to nothing more than literally finding a random item out in the world and magically knowing to whom it belonged? Those are all limitations of the short dev window and have nothing to do with the fans misunderstanding, or just not getting, the game.

I played DA2 a dozen times. I bought all of the DLC, including item packs. I like it well enough. But I'm not blind to its faults.

And some of it is just down to player preference. Some people want to have a hero that IS heroic and makes grand, sweeping decisions. Some people do NOT want a flawed protagonist that, no matter how hard they try, just can't fix anything. I don't think those players are misunderstanding; they simply don't like it. And that's okay, too. They're not wrong for disliking the game. Unfortunately, for many of those players, the flaws imparted as a result of the abbreviated dev window only enhance their dislike. For someone who likes the game, such as myself, I can see goodness shining through the faults and like the game in spite of them.

I might compare it to the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Wars is a grand, sweeping epic about a core group of people, while Star Trek basically boils down to a different morality play each week. I prefer Trek, but don't think that the Wars people just don't "get it" if they say they dislike Trek, and I'd expect the same from them.


[edit] And of course there are people who simply dislike the mechanical shift in the combat. If you came into DA2 expecting a similar slower pace to DAO, with the ability to go into the tactical camera and plan out the battlefield, those players can't be blamed for being disappointed.

Characters are a big draw in Dragon Age games and a big part of the reason I replay them. If you didn't like anyone, then that might also contribute to your dislike of the game.

In the end, there are a great many reasons people have for disliking DA2 that have nothing at all to do with not understanding the story structure.



Exactly.

Depends what your definition of "ending" is. People disagree because they have different interpretations of this word. Also in an ongoing series it's fine to "not have an ending" depending on how it's done. People disagreeing over the definition of an ending has little to do with people misunderstanding DA2 because it was structured like a classic tragedy (which often does have an ending).

One of the problems of DA2 is people sign up to the series for one thing, only for that to be completely changed on them in future releases. If you pick up a romance series (Danielle Steel - Sojourning with a Hot Prince Parts 1 through 15) then you don't and shouldn't expect it to suddenly transform into a horror story midway through, people didn't want that they wanted the romance. Same thing with Dragon Age. People signed up for a strategic combat, epic fantasy romp, not a hack and slash character drama. So yes, there was disappointment. And no, it's not because the Dragon Age writers are being too sophisticated for the plebs.

DA2 had some interesting ideas that simply weren't pulled off very well. Either through lack of time, resources, or planning.