77 réponses à ce sujet

[Time Spiral]

Greetings, All!

[edit: This forum has been great! Lots of feedback. I appended the official title of the article, and made a few alterations after some very good, directed, and solid constructive criticism. Thanks guys!]

Get your pitchforks ready!


Read this Dragon Age: Origins article, written by Time Spiral.
Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O) A Critical Review of its Weakest Elements




Yeah ... we'll see how this goes.

Modifié par Time Spiral, 07 février 2010 - 09:29 .

[Eurypterid]

Well written, I think, although I disagree on a few points. Unfortunately, I haven't time to go in-depth on it. A couple things though: it's definitely fantasy, as you have all the standard fantasy elements (magic, elves, dwarfs, etc.). It's intended to be low magic, so that may be a sticking point for you. I also think it's intended to be a long-running franchise with expansions, DLC, and sequel(s) to add to it, so that may explain the somewhat incomplete (my interpretation of the article) feeling. The point about it not being ground-breaking is, I think, a little unfair. I don't believe that was the intent. Supposed to be a standard fantasy setting with dark elements. I think it succeeds admirably.



After having played through it twice, with two more runs in the works, I can agree there are areas for improvement. But overall, I think the game really hit the mark as far as what the devs intended. And I think it's only going to get better from here.



Hmm, I guess I had more time to post than I thought.

[cmathews03]

Overall, I found your review interesting and well executed. However, I have to disagree, respectfully, with a few (in my opinion) egregious statements:

For starters, you assert that "the story is one of the weakest part[s] of this game, for sure," and, more definitively, that it is "the main Story Arc... that is so weak." A cursory glance on these forums, as well as other forums, will have you grappling with a contrary notion. I understand this point of contention hinges heavily on perspective--and, with that said, I, personally, find the story (and the main story arc) to be, undoubtedly, my favorite part of this game--so I'll conclude that it is what it is.

Continuing along that same trajectory, however, you go on to explain how the sub-stories basically overshadow the game to a fault. Whilst I see your point--and in some cases, I agree--in the game's defense: most, if not all, of those sub-stories are optional. If they distract from the main story arc, if they feel forced and misplaced, it would seem the easiest and most rational solution would be to skip them altogether. Mind you, the game (and as you would find, the story) would be the lesser from doing so, but I'm struggling to understand how "optional" content can be used as evidence for deficiency in the main campaign.

And I agree, too, with Eurypterid's assessment.

Modifié par cmathews03, 05 février 2010 - 02:38 .

[Bryant84]

make sure you have your hard hat on and except some bricks to be launched



good read though

Modifié par Bryant84, 05 février 2010 - 02:42 .

[Caozen]

Your review mentions the theme of the game, and how a world set in fantasy should capitalize more on that aspect. While I agree with you, I have to say it would be a fairly bold move for Bioware to dig themselves into such a resource-hungry design niche in what is the first game in a series. Yes, they could have put more effort into extravagance, but is that what we really want in the original title?

The way I see it, this is just a clean slate to be built upon. Who's to say what we see can't be retconned to fit the needs of the sequels? The geography could be vastly superior in concept compared to what we actually see simply because of budget. Bioware is using a brand new game engine, after all. Optimization isn't exactly realistic.

The same can easily be said about the story. What kind of 'classic' high fantasy series throws twists and turns at you in the original piece? The way I see it, Origins is getting us acquainted with the world, hence the name. Recruiting old allies to defend against an ancient threat sounds like the perfect means to do so. It's a typical progression method. Now that that's over, Dragon Age is branching out to fresher, more dangerous issues. The Architect doesn't sound too cliche to me, personally.



I like your review, and you touched on some important issues. It's just, concerning the story and design concept, I really believe this to be more of an intentional choice rather than a mistake on Bioware's part.

[Eurypterid]

I somewhat agree with the statement that the weakest part of the game is the overall story arc. Don't get me wrong: I still thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was well done. But it's pretty standard fare, and I felt the side quests/stories and the character development of the NPCs far out-shadowed the main story arc.



That being said, I really think that was the whole point of the game though, and it's not a weakness.The game's massive BECAUSE of the side quests and character/background/history development, not in spite of it. I think that's what the devs were going for and, IMO, they nailed it.

[Eurypterid]

Caozen wrote The way I see it, Origins is getting us acquainted with the world, hence the name. Recruiting old allies to defend against an ancient threat sounds like the perfect means to do so. It's a typical progression method. Now that that's over, Dragon Age is branching out to fresher, more dangerous issues. The Architect doesn't sound too cliche to me, personally.

A point I wanted to make, but you summed it up very nicely. Well said.

[Frozenflamekid]

Eurypterid wrote...

it's definitely fantasy, as you have all the standard fantasy elements (magic, elves, dwarfs, etc.). .

Since when did the standard fantasy elements become magic, elves, dwarves etc.?

I thought fantasy meant that it is imagined or fictional.....I think the biggest problem with "fantasy" games these days is that they all have elves, dwarves and magic..

Developers should scrap this whole fantasy pre-determination and start creating something original instead of Lord of the Rings clones

[Caozen]

Tyrion-Imp wrote...

Since when did the standard fantasy elements become magic, elves, dwarves etc.?

I thought fantasy meant that it is imagined or fictional.....I think the biggest problem with "fantasy" games these days is that they all have elves, dwarves and magic..

Developers should scrap this whole fantasy pre-determination and start creating something original instead of Lord of the Rings clones

If it wasn't Dwarves or Elves, it'd be some other means of distinguishing the inhabitants from those of the real world. Either way, it's the same concept in a generalized perspective. While one might complain about the overuse of such races as these, it should also be quite understandable. They're well-defined, and leave more than enough room for change on behalf of the creator. I believe this was more a decision of convenience on Bioware's part. They've already shown adequete imagination when it comes to races, as can be seen in Mass Effect.

As for Magic, that's just a general term one would use as a way to express their imagination. You need some sort of catalyst to invoke change. Magic is just the common word. I don't think Bioware was aiming at redefining a genre. They were aiming at a specific audience. Straying too far from the 'norm' would be risky, as well as time-consuming.

[RangerSG]

Tyrion-Imp wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

it's definitely fantasy, as you have all the standard fantasy elements (magic, elves, dwarfs, etc.). .

Since when did the standard fantasy elements become magic, elves, dwarves etc.?

I thought fantasy meant that it is imagined or fictional.....I think the biggest problem with "fantasy" games these days is that they all have elves, dwarves and magic..

Developers should scrap this whole fantasy pre-determination and start creating something original instead of Lord of the Rings clones

And when a developer does that, they get cited in TV-tropes under the category, "Our Elves are better." If imagined races get used at all, the assumption is they must be related to elves. Frankly, I think DA does enough to make their elves and dwarves different from what is expected. The content is distinct enough to render the name nothing more than a point of familiarity that can be used for ease of reference and yet is tweaked at points to surprise the player as well.

And yes, magic is typical of the quest narrative, going all the way back to the Odyssey.

Modifié par RangerSG, 05 février 2010 - 03:18 .

[Time Spiral]

WOW!



I'm stunned at the rapid rate of responses. I expected to post, go to bed, and
wake up to a little bit of activity. It's only been half an hour! Very cool.

For the record
I am NOT going to argue opinions. But, I will clarify my position, when appropriate, and discuss, possibly even bantar. But going back and forth on opinions is silly.

 

... It's intended to be low magic, so that may be a sticking
point for you.

...have all the standard fantasy elements (magic, elves, dwarfs, etc.)

Low magic? Hmmm That's an interesting take. I felt a pretty heavy focus on magic, especially with the importance and taboo placed on blood mages and what not. In the fantasy department, my point is that is seems like we have the bare minimums here. DEFINITELY not pushing the envelope with this one.


 

but I'm struggling to understand how "optional"
content can be used as evidence for deficiency in the main campaign.

When I say "sub-story arc" I'm specifically referring to things like: A.) Red Cliffe, B.) The Mage Tower, C.) Frost Back, and D.) Orzammar


 

make sure you have your hard hat on and except some bricks
to be launched

We're all adults here, I think But yes, I'm expecting to be ostricized from the communit, for sure.


 

Since when did the standard fantasy elements become magic,
elves, dwarves etc.?

Exactly.


Now, I think we can all agree that it is a good game, but a lot of the feel I got here so far was that they just spent years developing a game that is being considered and defended by the fans as a prologue!

"Oh they're just setting the stage. The good stuff is coming. You just wait!"

Really? Why not just deliver the good stuff right away? Too risky? BAH! Are you kidding? (then again, EA is involved now ...) Setting the stage is fine, and I understand that. But this is one of the main points of contention I have, and it falls into the "common pitfalls" category I discussed in the review: starting your story in the wrong spot.

Happens all the time. Oddly though, it is a pretty rookie mistake : / It is caused by the inherent desire to explain everything, starting from scratch, in order to fully develop the setting and have "everything be known". Unfortunately it is time consuming, and usually not nearly as interesting as the story you plan on eventually telling ... *cough DLC cough*

Let's keep it going, see what happens.

Modifié par Time Spiral, 05 février 2010 - 04:31 .

[Eurypterid]

I think it's necessary to 'set the stage' though. While the game's story is a pretty standard fantasy trope, the setting itslef is fairly unique in a number of aspects. Setting the stage is a necessary step, I think. Otherwise the player would be completely lost and I don't think that would really lead to enjoying the game, setting, or characters.

[Bibdy]

Your expectations were set far too high. What, did you expect this game to be Jesus 2.0 in box fomat?

[Clumber]

I really don't agree with any of the points in your review. I think it being not so in-your-face with the fantasy aspects of the game is what makes it such a good story, since everything fantastic is worked into the world as just another part of the world.



The storyline wasn't really the driving force of this game, which you seem to think is a bad thing. The driving force, I thought, was the world and character development while the story was just an excuse for it to happen. You don't explore Orzamar and the Deep Roads because you're expecting Loghain to show up and tell you you're Revan, you do it because they made everywhere so damn interesting that you can't NOT explore it.

[Murphys_Law]

I have a hard time taking a "critical" review seriously that goes into almost zero detail on why the game is good (as you mentioned) and has the main criticism be so focused on something as subjective as story elements. In addition, repeated attempts in the review to purposely downplay elements that don't support your opinion. You really think the Circle tower is something they saw in everyday medieval Europe? Probably the biggest facepalm moment reading your review is your comment on Bioware only putting in only A and B solutions to issues in the game. Not only is that flat out wrong in many cases, it once again makes me wonder what players like you want. You really think they have the resources necessary to plug in tons of extra solutions? You realize how much time and money that would take? Adding more choice detracts from the narrative (see sandbox RPGs), but I suppose you ignored that little issue. Be careful what you wish for when you ask for more choice.

[Dick Delaware]

I agree with some of your points, TimeSpiral. Personally, I didn't really care about Ferelden - I thought it was quite generic. There were parts I really liked underneath that I thought were really interesting: I liked the lore surrounding mages, the ruthless nature of dwarven society and their caste system, and the the recasting of elves as a weakened, oppressed race. But Ferelden itself, the country, the culture (which you didn't actually get a good sense of) - I did not particularly care about.

When Sten was telling me about his people, I was EXTREMELY interested by the Qunari and their rigid, but deeply philosophical and profound views on life. Likewise, the lore surrounding the remorseless cruelty of the Tevinter Imperium and their current struggle to cling together to whatever scraps of clout they have left also had me interested. The political intrigue and corruption in Orlais, which at times sounds like the Dwarven courts, but even more depraved and nasty, had me hooked. I also liked the irony (or perhaps, lack of irony) that it's also the seat of the Chantry. Ferelden had none of these qualities.

Anora and Loghain provided some spice to an otherwise bland country, but other than that, I can't think of one remarkable thing within the game's setting that is unique to Ferelden.

I loved the characters - I really cared about how my companions would react to my decisions. I love the possibilities for future sequels. The game also had a very fitting ending. But if Ferelden was darkspawn supper, I'd just let out a shrug.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 05 février 2010 - 08:09 .

[TheMadCat]

Better than most "critical" reviews I've read, nice job. Few things I don't necessarily agree with but no point in arguing it. Nice job.

[dkjestrup]

I just thought about what you said, regarding the start of the story. Imagine how cool it would be, if Alistar, married to Anora, and the youngest Cousland, recruited you just before the battle of Denerim. You witness the youngest Cousland slaying the archdemon, then after that, it becomes more of your story, dealing with stragglers and other stuff.



That would be so much better imo.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Time Spiral...interesting review, some thoughts...

Re: The Story

Personally I disagree that the story was weak, I think it holds your attention for 60+ hours weaving the whole into an epic. Now if you had said "The Darkspawn threat isn't realised for much of the story", then I would have agreed.

Solution: I think if you had to do the same basic story again, I would have punctuated the positive of each new ally gained (dwarves, elves, mages etc.) with some sort of Darkspawn offensive, to make it feel as if the threat was growing.

I agree there is also a sense of urgency missing when you are off chasing nugs or whatever.

Solution: Have strike teams of Darkspawn intercept the PCs if they dawdle too much in one location, say a limited number of 'random' battles. Each group of Darkspawn slightly more powerful than the next. These could be taken from the end fights in the game, so that if you beat them earlier you don't face them later. That way you don't miss anything.

Re: Choices

Dragon Age gives tons of choices while retaining a strong narrative. They give you a choice at the start with your origin. they give you a choice where to go in the middle of the game. Yes it tapers to a limited conclusion (though again with multiple possible endings even for the same character). So in this respect I fail to see how they could do anything better. If they give total freedom then they can't logically have any story in the game. So I think your criticism in this area is illogical.

Re: What is Fantasy

Dragon Age is low magic fantasy, like Conan or Lord of the Rings, rather than the high fantasy of D&D (for the most part), Warcraft and Final Fantasy. As such its roots lie in a faux medieval setting. This approach may be less 'fantastical' but it is no less fantasy. Unless you can prove Conan or Lord of the Rings are not fantasy either, then this argument of yours doesn't really hold water.

Re: Combat & Tactics

Pretty much agree with you on this. I too played the 360 and the lack of things like 'Avoid Friendly Fire' and 'When Ally is Dead' seem bizarre in their absence.

Interesting Idea as regards stealth, I like that. You could have a rogue auto-start with it, but once the battle begins its weird to stealth in combat. Perhaps as you say when the Rogue activates stealth in battle it should automatically use a smoke bomb or similar item. I'd also rather that stealth didn't work on animals who could smell you (though maybe a salve could compensate for that).

Agree also with the whole chaining potions thing (or poisons, or salves). One potion buff at a time should be a limit, or maybe introduce a Skill that lets you absorb the effects of more than one potion at a time. I also think that potions should have an addictive quality, so that the more you use them the lesser the effect. That'll dissuade people from just spamming fights with them.

Salves don't make any sense to use in combat. I'd make their effect longer lasting, only allow one to operate at any time and not allow them to be used during combat.

Interesting that you didn't pick up on what is my biggest gripe with the game, the lack of monster identity (in their own tactics/strategies) and the lack of encounter variety making the combat feel very repetitive...not to mention less challenging when you figure out one set of good tactics.

Re: Conclusion:

Is it a big game that feels small? Maybe, but I think thats because of the lack of urgency in the middle part of the game (Act 2 if you will).

Didn't agree with your criticism of the games choices, nor arguing it wasn't fantasy. But agreed with most of the rest.

One other element you didn't pick up on was the graphics of the 360 version, I have watched some youtube clips of Dragon Age on PC and nearly thought it was a different game the graphics were so sharp in comparison!

[Sylixe]

Bibdy wrote...

Your expectations were set far too high. What, did you expect this game to be Jesus 2.0 in box fomat?

Well you know they did come out of the gates with that bold statement calling the game "the spiritual succesor" to BG.  That's a very lofty statement to be throwing around since many still consider that the best of this genre ever.  What's even worse is that this game doesn't even come close to equalling BG. 

I love how people throw around that "big" word when describing DAO as well.  The game is actually a lot smaller than many games out today or of the past.  You only think it's big because of all the useless dialogue that you are forced to muddle through.  Play the game and just ESC through the dialogue and you will see just how short the game really is.

Modifié par Sylixe, 05 février 2010 - 01:03 .

[Time Spiral]

What's up, fellows!

[SPOILER WARNING IN THIS RESPONSE]

I'm still very much enjoying the interaction here. I will continue as originally planned: to clarify when appropriate. But, I'm not all about "arguing opinions". I much more enjoy the discussion of opinions. So, let's get into it ... Let's start with Murphy.

[Identification added]

A.) I have a hard time taking a "critical" review seriously that goes into almost zero detail on why the game is good (as you mentioned) and has the main criticism be so focused on something as subjective as story elements. In addition, B.) repeated attempts in the review to purposely downplay elements that don't support your opinion. You really think the Circle tower is something they saw in everyday medieval Europe? Probably the biggest facepalm moment reading your review is your comment on C.) Bioware only putting in only A and B solutions to issues in the game. Not only is that flat out wrong in many cases, it once again makes me wonder what players like you want. You really think they have the resources necessary to plug in tons of extra solutions? D.) You realize how much time and money that would take? Adding more choice detracts from the narrative (see sandbox RPGs), but I suppose you ignored that little issue. E.) Be careful what you wish for when you ask for more choice.

A.) There is very little praise in the article as it stands now, and the primary reason for this is brevity. Currently the article is about 1600+ words. I absolutely love to write, and could easily have extended that article two, three, maybe even four times. Maybe keeping it rather concise was a mistake?

B.) This is a little pressumptiuous in my opinion. I feel like I was simply articulating my points. At no point did I consciously attempt to downplay elements that "counter my opinion". I really enjoyed the game. I could write a whole article about what they did right, but ... that wasn't the intent here.

C.) Let's start this one off by setting the record straight: I DO NOT WANT MORE CHOICES. Did it come off like I was asking for more choices? I thought I was simply pointing out attributes about the decision structure of the game. [1] In the Brecillian forest, fight the lady or fight the elf. [2] In Orzammar: Harrowmont or Behlen (sp?) [3] Fight Caridin or Branka. [4] Redcliffe: Save the boy, sacrifice the mother. The list goes on, and on, and on ... Does it not? Is this not a binary decision structure?

D.) Unfortunately, no. I really have very little concept of production costs in the gaming industry, and what specific features and functionalities cost to implement : / I wish I did. The second half of this point just illustrates how I think you missed one of my main points (if not the entire drive of the article).

E.) What does this even mean? See rebuttal point C.



@Upper_Krust
What a well written, and thoughtful response. Thank you! And yes, when I say "the main story arc is weak" I thought it would be obvious to a DA:O fan what I meant by this. The main Story Arc is this: A scourge/blight, led by an ancient evil, is about to dominate the land. Gather an army (at your leisure), and fight the Blight. Maybe I should have been more clear about that in the review? But ... I don't recall ever really thinking the Blight was a big deal, and every sub-story arc was completely disconnected from this overall Arc. To me, that is weak story-telling.

The Story-telling in DA:O is better characterized as "Episodic" rather than "Epic" in my opinion. Now hold on, hold on ... That is not a "bash", that is an observation. Some of my favorite fiction ever is Episodic (SG-1), so Episodic does not = bad.

SOLUTIONS
I like how you added solutions into your response, and I avoided doing this for a very specific reason (with the exception of the gameplay section). Just about every aspect of my technical training required routine and frequent, group oriented, constructively critical review sessions. Developing, and articulating meaningful constructive criticism is a skill, one I've spent most of my professional life developing. But it is only appropriate in certain scenarios; most notably 1.) when in the pressence of peers, or 2.) when it is specifically asked or required of you.

I do not consider the developers or the executives at Bioware to be peers (except maybe in a very few specialized professoinal cases). If they even came across such an article, which is doubtful, they would have the appropriate team necessary to cultivate constructive elements from the article in a way that is more contextually and applicably relevent.

Additionally, I didn't want that tone in the article. When offering solutions, it can take on the tone of "All of these things are broken, but I know how to fix them." Just doesn't seem appropriate to me.

That's enough for now. Let's keep going!

[thegoldfinch]

Something I would like to bring up in response to the 'story arc' criticism, is  that Bioware is known for that formula. By formula, I mean "Opening sequence - player choice of given locations to explore - all points converge at an end." Bioware does this because it works well in a game setting.

As you know, books do not always translate well into movies and, just the same, a novel story arc does not always translate well into a role playing game. If you were going to take a Harry Potter novel and translate it word for word into a game, it would get pretty lame pretty quickly because you wouldn't be in a position of action. Or worse, something like Of Mice and Men. Beautiful story, bad, bad, bad game material.


Bioware's tactic to compensate for the medium's inherent downfalls and still have a great story is that the different worlds of the Circle, the Dalish, the Deep Roads, etc, give the player a sense that they are indeed a fantasy world with a vast array of depth and history while they get to fight or otherwise be actively doing something exciting. It simultaneously adresses some player complaints that story-driven games are too linear. They give you a choice of where to go, what to do and how to do it, while wrapping it all together with a bow at the conclusion. Knights of the Old Republic did the exact same thing and I felt that it worked just great. The player chose what planet they wanted to explore, and they found a bunch of fascinating side-quests and followed a main plot line to seek out the Star Maps. I felt immersed while moving towards a simple goal.

At the end of the day, Bioware was able to tell their story and you were able to tell them how to do it.

If they didn't give the player a choice in where they were going in favor of telling a story that fit together fluidly, players would complain that it was too linear. If the world became free-roaming a la Oblivion, the player would get NO sense of pacing as opposed to the little that you did get in DA. Bioware found a happy medium, I think.

Speaking of pacing, I agree that there isn't enough sense of urgency. During the battle of Ostagar, though, man, did they do a great job or what? During my first play through, I felt panicked about getting to the top of the tower and skipped precious loot even though *I was being never timed*. I love it when that happens. It kind of
fizzled out after that, though. I kept hearing of a growing Blight but I never saw any severe consequences other than Lothering. The most I could get was asking about rumors from the camp merchant, which seems a little like a cop out to me and was mostly about the civil war, anyway.


Edited for randomly messed up formatting. o_O

Modifié par pixieface, 05 février 2010 - 04:55 .

[Leohan]

Although I didn't peruse the argument, mainly just skimmed, I saw a part of your review that definitely needed to be pointed out. You stated that the game is medieval, and not fantasy, but I honestly cannot agree. How in the world are darkspawn and dragons medieval? To say medieval is to say that it pertains to the Middle Ages, and I don't ever recall hearing about a dragon in historic times. Well wait, there must have been dwarves and elves in the Middle Ages as well, right? That couldn't have been fantasy either.



I don't mean to censure you and I hope you don't take it offensively, I just wanted to merely express my opinion on the matter.

[Mlai00]

The only thing I can agree with in your critique is that the Darkspawn threat doesn't seem very threatening in the mid-game. The solution would probably have been to make the "overworld map" part of the game to be more like X-Com in basic design.

Most of your other detractions from the game seem very weak, and without factual basis. For example, it seems you've never heard of low magic fantasy. It is hard sci fi, for fantasy. I.E. more history and anthropology than your generic laser-shooting sword JRPG fantasy. While JRPGs can tell mature storylines also, they fail miserably in establishing believable low magic fantasy worlds. Many of us consider low-magic an indication of skilled writing.

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again Time Spiral!

Time Spiral wrote...

@Upper_Krust
What a well written, and thoughtful response. Thank you!

You're very welcome.

And yes, when I say "the main story arc is weak" I thought it would be obvious to a DA:O fan what I meant by this. The main Story Arc is this: A scourge/blight, led by an ancient evil, is about to dominate the land. Gather an army (at your leisure), and fight the Blight. Maybe I should have been more clear about that in the review? But ... I don't recall ever really thinking the Blight was a big deal, and every sub-story arc was completely disconnected from this overall Arc. To me, that is weak story-telling.

Understandable, but I do think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So I wouldn't criticise the entire story because of the execution of one act.

I've given my earlier idea a tad more thought and I believe it may have solved the slow pacing of the middle act.

The middle act is distinguished by its four tentpole moments...the allies. Humans, Elves/Werewolves, Dwarves/Golems, Mages/Templars. Depending in which order you chose to gain the allies I would have had the Darkspawn attack them. One of the main problems with the darkspawn (seemingly solved in Awakening) is that they are a bunch of faceless mooks. Bioware could have maybe built up the idea that the Archdemon's army had four distinct Generals (perhaps one genlock, one Hurlock, one Sharlock and one Ogre). These would have been playing the 'Darth Vader' role to the Archdemons 'Emperor'. Each general would be leading one portion of the Archdemon's army. The Darkspawn would know about your goals (the Archdemon dreams of Grey Wardens just as Grey Wardens dream of the archdemon), but always be one step behind you. So that by the time you had gained your second ally they would have beseiged the first. So your first ally may even get wiped out if you don't chose to help. You'd have the option of either helping right away or trying to get the next ally as quickly as possible.

The Story-telling in DA:O is better characterized as "Episodic" rather than "Epic" in my opinion. Now hold on, hold on ... That is not a "bash", that is an observation. Some of my favorite fiction ever is Episodic (SG-1), so Episodic does not = bad.

I'd agree with that, its less a single coherant story and more a disparate collection of events. Although in fairness it is a 60+ hour story, I suspect it might be tricky to sustain a rollercoaster of situations throughout that length of time...then again,maybe not.

SOLUTIONS
I like how you added solutions into your response, and I avoided doing this for a very specific reason (with the exception of the gameplay section). Just about every aspect of my technical training required routine and frequent, group oriented, constructively critical review sessions. Developing, and articulating meaningful constructive criticism is a skill, one I've spent most of my professional life developing. But it is only appropriate in certain scenarios; most notably 1.) when in the pressence of peers, or 2.) when it is specifically asked or required of you.

I do not consider the developers or the executives at Bioware to be peers (except maybe in a very few specialized professoinal cases). If they even came across such an article, which is doubtful, they would have the appropriate team necessary to cultivate constructive elements from the article in a way that is more contextually and applicably relevent.

Well, when I have these ideas I just have to type them out.

Whenever I play a videogame I usually go onto the forums afterwards and give my constructive criticism, so that I might help (however little) possible sequels...you should see some of my posts in the New Creatures thread. I think I have singlehandedly redesigned every single monster from tactics, behaviour and abilities from the ground up as well as adding a dozen or three more.

Additionally, I didn't want that tone in the article. When offering solutions, it can take on the tone of "All of these things are broken, but I know how to fix them." Just doesn't seem appropriate to me.

 
I'm an RPG Designer by trade (PnP)...and I love problem solving. As such, sharing my opinions on these matters is cathartic...in fact I am sort of compelled to it.