Dragon Age: Origins Forum Activity

Category: News Archive

Hits: 867

Written by BuckGB on August 7th, 2009

Tweet

As we have said before, we have not finalized the various digital distribution options for Dragon Age: Origins. We clearly understand the desire for DA to appear on Steam. No further voicing is needed. I will point my finger towards Mass Effect on Steam as an example.

That being said, it will come down to business dealings between EA and Valve and we will all just have to wait patiently.

In order of their rank:

Noble caste
Warrior caste
Smith caste
Artisan caste
Miner caste
Merchant caste
Servant caste
Surface caste *
the casteless

* NOTE: the existance of a "surface caste" is a source of contention amongst the dwarves, and by and large the Shaperate would consider the surface dwarves to rank amongst the casteless. The growing number of high-ranking castes that voluntarily live on the surface however, makes the idea of them remaining permanent exiles a bit problematic.

Many of the castes have strata within them, and the rank of a specific member may be a source of considerable argument (a highly-placed member of the Smith caste might consider themselves above a lowly soldier, for instance) but overall the caste ranks are considered inviolate.

Indeed. The other option is to have the player walking around asking questions that their character should really know the answer to. "What is my clan? What are the Dalish?" etc etc.

Generally I think it's best to present this kind of background information to the player without needing to resort to such blunt expository tactics. If we can present what their clan is and what the Dalish are in short order once they start playing that character, then they don't need to ask such questions. Basic information, ideally, should be presented as early on as possible (hence the Origins).

And when information comes up in dialogue that the player's character should know (but with the player might not -- generally in the realm of "common world knowledge") it's not impossible to present the response options in such a way as to inform the player without making their character seem clueless.

"It looks like the Red Bastards are just over the rise."
1. Why would mercenaries be here?
2. They're probably killing elves again.
3. [if a dwarf] The Red who?
4. Then we're in trouble.

Now the above is made up, but if it's reasonable to assume that everyone in the setting should know what the Red Bastards are (short of a dwarf, apparently) then there's no reason to explain it to the player in context without using exposition. That's what context is there for.

If you really prefer that your character get dropped into the world like a newborn or just presented with world facts completely cold (in William Gibson-like fashion) I suppose that's one way to do it, but it's not going to help anyone fit into a setting that they don't know anything about. Beyond that, so long as we are not forcing motivations onto the player's character and simply presenting this information in a contextual manner (meaning that we may use things such as [lie] tags for clarity) then I really don't see the objection.

It's an interesting question. Obviously we are aiming straight at "traditional fantasy" with our own twist on it, but these twists aren't something you're going to see on a cursory glance. You're going to see them once you get into the game.

Is that enough of a difference for some people? I guess it really depends on how much value you place on novelty. Clearly some people take on a jaded outlook as if they've seen it all before -- and really at that point I wonder what, if anything, would please them. If we did include elements that were deliberately different would we then be chided for trying too hard? Or copying some different source? Or just not doing it right? Would we suddenly hear from those who would mourn the lack of something recognizeable? Or would it excite the people who claim to be really tired of "regular" fantasy and yet elicit a yawn from everyone else?

Hard to say. Ultimately we can speculate all we like. I would hesitate to assign too much importance to the naysayers, however, as they would be likely to say nay no matter what (in fact, they will undoubtedly say "nay!" at the suggestion this is what they do) -- I don't think it's really an indication of much other than their open-mindedness. And this is fine -- skepticism is healthy, no? At the end of the day, the setting is the backdrop and it's what we do within it that is most important. If we can paint a compelling picture once you play the game (or read the books, I suppose) then I suspect it won't really matter at that point how "revolutionary" the setting is or isn't.

...

No, I don't mean to dismiss it entirely -- not at all. All I'm suggesting is that one shouldn't judge the reaction simply by those who make negative comments. Such comments would be likely to come from some corner no matter what we did.

As you suggested, our choice in the setting's creation was deliberate. Not just to make it accessible to the masses (although that is a part, sure) but more because we wanted traditional fantasy -- something that was recognizeable and in which we could put our stamp, and something that would be recognizeable to the public at large while still allowing us room to play within those self-imposed limitations.

As someone else pointed out, having some familiar elements does allow us to spend less time explaining what those things are -- leaving us free to introduce the more unique elements, and even playing with the expectations brought to the table by the stereotypes themselves.

The way I look at it is this: did you think BG2 was a good game? If so, is the Forgotten Realms (its setting) a particularly unique setting for that game? Not to suggest that having a unique setting can't be a wonderful advantage, but obviously it's not the only thing required to tell a good story and build a good game. That said, as I said in my previous post skepticism is just fine. People are free to comment on their impressions of what we're showing, and we'll gladly listen. My only point here is that if one is to say that a setting's novelty is the only barometer of its success or import, I would politely disagree.

The qunari have access to advanced metallurgy, as well as gunpowder (meaning cannons, not handheld firearms). This advantage is somewhat reduced by the magical firepower held by humanity in Thedas, but at first it was indeed enough to take the north literally by storm.

As to whether the Orlesians could do the same? Anything is possible -- though first there would have to be a concerted effort to cross the Amaranthine Ocean and see what's on the other side before there was any thought of conquering something.

The only member of the dragon family you're likely to meet on its own is the non-adult female -- the "dragon" as opposed to the "high dragon". These females strike out on their own at some point and attempt to form a nest.

When you encounter a high dragon, there you're also likely to encounter drakes and immature young (dragonlings). Drakes are physically powerful and have a bit more mass than females of their race, but do not breathe fire and overall are less of a threat -- though there may be individual drakes that could, on their own, present as much of a challenge as a female.

The exact mating process for dragons is not well known. If a female strikes out on her own to create a nest, does she need to find a drake? Does she lay eggs on her own? There is evidence to suggest that female dragons encourage the presence of "helpers" -- humans have been found in dragon nests, assisting in the feeding and care of dragonlings in exchange for dragon blood. These "dragon cults" are often quite loyal to their matron, but how these cults are created is unknown. Dragons do not talk, after all, so how is such an arrangement set up? There is much speculation, but no proof.

You start the game with the bestest armor available, the most powerful weapon and all potential skills and spells. We figured this would be easier than making you play the game.

This post brought to you by Evil Chris Priestly, BioWare's Community Coordinator and Chairman of the BioWare Sarcasm Society.

Dog is a fully fleshed out party NPC. The writers and Dev team have made him every bit as fun and compelling as any of the other party NPCs.

He is still a dog though. Do not expect some sort of "magical dog" where he smokes a pipe while wearing a bathrobe discussing poetry or climbing the side of buildings to pick the lock on a safe . He is a dog. He growls. He whines. He barks. He wags his tail. He pees on trees. He savagely rips the throats out of enemies. You know, dog things.

He is smarter than Alistair though. In my opinion anyways.

You can save anywhere at any time EXCEPT during dialog, cutscenes or combat.

• Prev
• Next