I think the noise on the internet has a lot to do with SBI, a kind of group which gives people who support LGBT bad names and for them anything remotely "Woke" means bad. Let's not forget Hogwarts Legacy has LGBT, yet it got hate for J . K Rowling yet most selling game of 2023 same attack Starfield got for 'PRONOUNCE'. Yet it has over 15m+ both PC and XBOX and if you check on the internet it got so much hate posts there.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 even if SBI didn't exist there would still be people who would complain. They either would find another company or just complain anyways. They aren't particularly rational. Man I will never get over the guy who screamed "PRONOUNS" like that man was way to funny. Especially considering that Starfield sold so much.
@@Knight1029 Yup that guy is still so funny 😂 like it wasn't an issue in Cyberpunk where you can be FUTA or Baldur Gate 3 it has 'PRONOUNCE!' Yet it wasn't an issue 😂 another funny thing I remember they got accessibility for GOD MODE on Easy like dude you can always turn it off make custom difficulty or go NIGHTMARE where you can't change difficulty.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 these people just love yo complain. Because fundamental they just hate "wokeness". But hey we get really funny videos out of it. Seeing them get fake or legitimately mad about accessibility features that they can turn off. Like is someone holding a gun to their head forcing them to play on easy or what?
Can I add one more thing? I know, I know, lol. But I see a lot of people talking about how free they were to make a lot of different choices in Origins. Origins was made originally as a one off game. Though BW had hopes they'd make more, they weren't sure if it would even sell that much, so yeah, they let you kill npcs and gave you that freedom. As soon as it was announced that there was going to be a franchise, they had to account not only for the story they wanted to tell in this game, but acknowledge your past choices in a different game/s. I can't think of any franchise that has done that, having separate protagonists in the same world while respecting your previous choices. Unless someone can enlighten me, what BW does with DA is unique.
Its cool. I don't mind adding more to the conversation. You make a good point there. Even David Gaider said that if he knew their would be an immediate sequel to DAO he would have limited how many choices the player had and written fewer epilogue slides. They allowed the player to do so much because they thought they weren't gonna make a new Dragon Age game for a long while. The only other studio who carried over and recognize the player's choices is CDPR but they are far worse at it than Bioware. In Witcher 3 they retcon the player's choice to kill someone and make the big choice in Witcher 2 meaningless in Witcher 3. Bioware is the only studio who puts in effort in respecting the player's choices from the previous games. Not even Larian does that. They just skip a hundred years and pretend nothing happened.
I feel this is a really important point. Yes DA:O is great on its own, but it's not a great start of a franchise of reactive games because it simply does crerate too many varibles for future games to account for. And I feel like all the subsequent DA games get flack for lacking Origins' range of choices and variables, which they could never really do. A franchise with the reactivity of DA is ambitious, but it's also impractical to actually create. Bioware is always ddomed to walk a line between what would be amazing and what is possible to create.
Another way to look at it is even with the overabundance of choice that you have in something like BG3, your adventure is still curated. It's a video game. The devs can offer you thousands of choices and record hundreds of variations of reactions to what you choose, but there is currently no way to REALLY have an infinite amount of choices and reactions... that's still limited to imaginations and tabletop rpgs. Great video!
BG3 is definitely up there with Fallout New Vegas with giving the player a lot of freedom to do whatever. But even then there is a limit to that freedom. The player can't just decide to leave and go somewhere else. Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed the video.
Great points. This is why I actually enjoy Bioware games the most. For me it's the perfect amount of "choice". I've played all bioware games except bg1&2 so I never understand people comparing Bioware now to BG3 for example. They aren't trying to be that anymore and haven't been that for a long time. And I also have DAO nostalgia big time, my all time favourite game, but I'm just grateful we get more content in this incredible setting. I'm not getting hung up on the lack of a tactical view.
@@Stuffeddodo thank you! I am glad I made good points. I honestly think it's because most people don't understand what Bioware is even trying to do. They made up their minds on what they think they are trying to do an get mad when it doesn't happen. I love DAO to. I played it 11 times. It counts for something but the tactics gameplay was not why I loved it so much.
@@mattstansbeary3068 I just don't get it. It feels like they all want one type of RPG. When that would suck. I am not a big fan of Larian's style but I am happy knowing that people love their style. More RPGs that are different is better than fewer.
Bioware has always created curated experiences because they're telling very specific stories. They give you freedom in how you approach the world, but it's always been limited to the confines of the story they're telling. You can not have true "open" experiences and a singular, coherent story. By way of comparison, Bethesda gives you a lot of freedom, but none of their stories are particularly complex or even necessarily memorable. That's the trade-off. At least until AI reaches a point where it can become a defacto "dungeon master," addressing every possible outcome on the fly. Despite the pushback against such things, I actually prefer a voiced protagonist. It's more immerive for me, and it makes me feel like my character is part of the story and not just an observer.
Its just Bioware's way of approaching RPGs. David Gaider (lead writer on all the Dragon Age games) said his style of DMing is very curated. So, it just goes to show that Bioware has always wanted to create curated stories. Not that a open experience and singular coherent story is contradictory its just they are just not complimenting each other's strengths. They are at odds with one another. So, a studio has to choose which one to do. I also like voice protagonists. I dislike how the HoF just doesn't talk and can tell when they could have given a big speech its given to another character. Its breaks immersion knowing that my character isn't actually apart of the world.
@Knight1029 My GM style was also "curated," as my players didn't tend to do well with an "open" format. I'm currently playing through DA: O again, and yeah, it's frustrating to choose a dialogue option and then have Alistair clarify what I'm saying, like my character is an idiot. I generally prefer the Bioware "experience" over the Bethesda one. I like Bethesda games, but there's not a lot of story depth. I also prefer to have a well-rounded party mix over a (mostly) silent companion. Bioware games just feel more "alive."
@@drewtheunspoken3988 I am gonna GM soon and I know my style is more curated. Yeah it sucks that you can't have a back and forth with a silent protagonist. It just feels like I am being talked to rather than talking with. Same. I occasionally get the feeling to play a Bethesda game but its mostly for the feeling of exploration. Not the story. While Bethesda has a lot of great systems to make the world feel real, I think Bioware still does it better.
I enjoyed this video. I was very glad to see creators making rational arguments about BioWare games in stark contrast to the angry weirdos declaring that BioWare went woke because of EA and Black Rock. Which is just an absolutely wild take that I can’t believe more than one person maintains for a game company that has made games with gay romances for almost 20 years. Not adding much to the discourse here, but I wanted to post a comment for engagement :)
Its cool. I like it when anyone cares to comment. It also makes me a bit happier. And thank you for the engagement! I will never get these people who claim to be "fans" of the series because its clear they haven't player a Bioware game or were paying attention.
@@dobelEXP So they weren't woke when Dragon Age world building and story writing was done by David a gay man ? Or first one to make Star Wars having LGBT character ? 😂
There are people who don't understand why Bioware decides to add in a lot of LGBT stuff in their RPGs like Dragon Age and Mass Effect. First of all, it's a Canadian Gaming Company that's been supporting the LGBT community since gay marriage was legalized in Canada at around 2005. Second, Bioware is trying to market their games to everyone, including people from the LGBT Community. Sure Dragon Age Inquisition was banned from India for have gay romance options, but that didn't stop the game from reaching a lot of sales success. Lots of games were banned from certain countries. Example: Mortal Kombat 2011 was banned from Australia for explicit depictions of dismemberment, decapitation, disembowelment and other brutal forms of slaughter. Some people complained that Dragon Age Inquisition was bad for having gay romances, despite the fact that Dragon Age always had gay romances since Origins. And besides, Dragon Age is one of those games where players can romance any companion they might have feelings for, no matter what the race and gender is. Baldur's Gate 3 did the same thing with having gay romances and that game was considered the best game of 2023. Fire Emblem Three Houses had gay romances and that game won best strategy game of 2019. All that I'm saying is that it's Bioware's choice to have gay romances in their games because their country supports the LGBT community.
I also think there is an element that Bioware feels like its the right thing to do. Because supporting people to live how they want is also an important factor to consider. Regardless, I agree with what you said. Some people just don't understand why Bioware has and supports the LGBT community when in reality it is quite simple.
I have to give correction here it was EA's decision not Bioware they self censored themselves and its stupid because The Last Of Us 2,Mass Effect 3,Baldur Gate 3,Spiderman 2 come just fine no cut or censorship and the LAW in India where Article 377 no longer exist meaning being Gay isn't criminalized anymore 😂 they were being sissy funny DAO & DA2 Sells well but issue on DAI ? How idiotic.
@Knight1029 I also believe that it has had a very positive impact in some people's lives, I know of some people in the forums who were initially against same-sex relationships but then thanks to Romances with characters like Leliana, Zevran and Dorian ( in addition to the whole roster of DA:II) have changed their minds dramatically. I think in its own small way it has helped change many people's minds.
@@edoardoturco8780 it definitely helps. The more common same-sex relationships are the more normal and okay they seem. Its important to celebrate when games like Dragon Age make being queer a normal thing.
This is a really interesting, insightful video you've put together. I overall agree with a lot of your points, and you actually put into words something I'd always felt and not really been able to describe with your discussion on the type of rpgs Bioware makes. Their games aren't on-rails per se, but they are made and written to tell a story and to express certain themes. The choices we get give us the opportunity to engage with that story and those themes in different ways, with some extra choices sprinkled in to let us express our characters in ways that help to make them feel more unique and personalized. And honestly I think I like that approach better than the BG3 approach, where my character ended up feeling very empty and disconnected from the world.
Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed the video. I often felt like no one understands what Bioware is and are trying to judge them on standards they aren't trying to meet. So, many people seem to think they are trying to making a RPG with absolute player freedom. But in reality they are using RPGs to tell stories or to enhance stories, characters, the world and themes. I am glad I was able to get that across. I also prefer Bioware's approach. It just makes my character feel more alive and connected with the world. Its one of my biggest issues with BG3 as well. I just feel so disconnected from everything.
It's such a crappy feeling not getting what you want but alas - the gaming industry not pandering towards a specific demographic is natural. I really believe that the industry no longer elevates the previous 'gamer archtype' as the standard anymore and as such all we will see from that group (NOT ALL OF COURSE MY BEAUTIFUL FRIENDS) is alot of overt complaints about pandering and wokeness which is nothing but ironic as now they are what they feared lolol.
They hate the fact they aren't the only group or the most pandered group anymore. What's happening isn't them being erased its just that everyone is getting pandered to. Which is fine. I like it when their are games that appeal to everyone or are just for some people. That's cool.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 first comment indeed. Thank you! I am glad I articulated my point in the video. I think a lot of younger audiences tend to take the series as a whole while older audiences take it as a change. Which is very interesting on its own.
@@Knight1029 True another point I think is funny they hate Inqusitition being MMO RPG style or fetch quest ( Like Dragon Age series or companion quest isn't that) then they cry new one isn't like Dragon Age type but more like Witcher 3,God Of War (2018),Dragon Dogma type and not many abilities or can't control your team (which those two changes I dislike) is a problem now the inconsistencies is too damn high like what do you want now ? 😂
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 honestly it's just because they want to complain. They have no positions other than to complain. Whatever they can say to dislike Dragon Age is good. Even if it's contradictory.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753You clearly haven’t played Origins if you think it’s companions quests and side quests were meaningless fetch quests like in inquisition. Each quest in origins had a sense of urgency and either was relevant to the plot or helped to push the story forward with rewards and later consequences. Nothing like the pointless wartable quests in inquisition.
An argument I see is, "How can Bioware make the combat so causal when BG3 shows you can make complex gameplay and be super successful?" As much as people online criticize various AAA RPGs for being too actiony, there's a reason why studios moved away from the combat of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. The truth is that RPGs would not be as big now if studios sticked to the hardcore/janky mechanics of the 90's and early 2000's. Now, of course happy that BG3 sold 10 million copies while being a more tradional CRPG game. That does not change the fact that Veilguard has been development before Divinity original sin 2 was even announced. Even if we assumed the real development started in 2021 (which is very likely), BG3 was in early access for a year from the point. I do not believe that Bioware has anymore goodwill left from both EA and the public to delay the game another 3 years to make Veilguard more BG3. I'm fine with people being skeptical/having low expectations for veilguard. The game has clearly been through development hell. But people shouldn't just mark the game for death before it's released and judge by fair standards. Not standards that was only raised a year ago.
I do think its important to judge the game when its released and not before. We lack context for how it plays out. It could be good or bad. But stating either one is just foolish. People can obviously not like what they are seeing but that isn't the same as writing the game off as bad. Also I think a large part of BG3's success isn't due to it being a more traditional RPG but rather it being cinematic. BG3 is very similar to DOS2 combat wise. But DOS2 didn't sell as much or was as popular because it wasn't as cinematic. What I think BG3 taught the industry is that cinematic games sell. Which was already known. Another point to why BG3 being cinematic was the reason for its success is looking at Rouge Trader. Sure it is a popular game and sold well but it isn't anywhere near the level of BG3.
You are wrong. No one single factor makes a game great. BG3 has almost everything right, great story, gameplay, really great characters and also cinematography & music. Games like Witcher 3, Baldur Gate 3 stays with us even after finishing it. I'll never forget Geralt, Ciri or most BG3 characters, and the overall experience I had in these games.
Bioware was inclusive before inclusivity was common! Amd its no "woker" than BG3 which is apparently the best game. The algirithm loves all comments, both positive and negative. So say how you feel. I feel so excited for this game. It looks like a natural progression from inquisition.
@@RandomWandrer yeah. Like the game being "woke" isn't an issue at all. These people are clearly trying to push an agenda. Same! I am excited to see what will happen with Veilguard. It looks amazing and I can't wait to see it.
The issue is Simple Players: Bioware should make a CRPG like Baldur's Gate 3. Bioware: No and that wasn't our Baldur's Gate that was Larian's Studio Baldur's Gate. Players: We don't understand. There are Different Studios and Larian's Studio only makes CRPG and Bioware makes Action RPG's. What the Players should say is we like Larian's Studio and understand that isn't Bioware. Now I went and lost them on understanding. Simple this Bioware makes Games their way & Larian's Studio Makes Games Their way they are total Different Studios there is Different Styles and yes even when Someone making the Same Game they do it in Different ways.
The baffling thing is that Bioware intended Dragon Age to be a more action orientated game even from Origins and people still complain. Veilguard combat looks better than anything we got from previous Dragon Age titles anyway
Yeah, Bioware and Larian both make RPGs but the way they approach the genre is different. Its like saying that Bioware and Obsidian RPGs are the same. Even though they are very different. And if people want Bioware to make Larian RPGs that's fine to want. Its at least honest in how it acknowledges that Bioware is making a different kind of RPG.
@@oliwierwagrowski3176 I remember reading comments on DAO and BG1 and 2 fans hated how simplified and action-y it looked. The line for what people consider simple and action-y is different. And for some of those fans DAO was simple and action-y.
@@Knight1029 The thing is Baldur's Gate 1& 2 was CRPG's then Bioware made Dragon Age Origins & went Action RPG but since Baldur's Gate is not own by Bioware or Larian there is no Reason to compare the Games. Even Larian Studio is against how they were ordered around during the BG3 Development by the Owner of the BG series this is why they Turned Down BG4 & said they will never Make another Baldur's Gate Game. So yes Their next Game will get Hated on once they announce it.
@@mattstansbeary3068 I do think there is a reason to compare the games and studios. The reason being just setting the conversation straight. A lot of people think BG3 is like DAO when in reality they are very different. Even BG1 and 2 are very different from BG3. Also what do you mean by "So yes Their next Game will get Hated on once they announce it." I don't think I understand what you mean.
I’m glad there’s someone like you with rational thought which is what’s sorely needed. The “wokeness” arguments are incredibly tiring to hear. It’s like those folks forgot those are optional and aren’t being forced on them. I play Dragon Age for story and more, but keeping gameplay refreshing and interesting is also important. If the my kept things exactly the same, then yeah, a game will get boring fast. Things have to change up at some point. BioWare’s layoffs were already painful and past employees actually have been bullied off by fans. Support is sorely needed for games to succeed or even continue. And companies like EA do hurt them in more ways than one, that I can agree on. That’s my grain of salt on the matters. Also the recent arguments about the god mode. People forget disabled gamers exist (I am one of them but not physically).
Thank you! I try my best to be fair minded about these things. People just don't seem to get what Bioware is and that they have always been "woke". I think there is something to gameplay consistency but I do see the appeal of a new gameplay style each game. Oh yeah man. Supporting the developers especially when they are laid off is really important. Yeah, and Dragon Age wasn't player for it difficulty. This isn't FromSoftware where the difficulty is apart of the story and feeling of the game. Dragon Age has always been about its story, characters and world. Dying fifty times doesn't help that.
Making everyone pansexual for the sake of it is wokie delusion. Stop trying to defend it. It reduces them to a bunch of checklists instead of characters with preferences.
@@Knight1029 It was not always 'woke' but I guess when your worldview is one of intolerance to outside viewpoints, you like cherry picking and pretending exceptions are the majority.
Dragon age 2 had quite great dialogue, Inquisition was acceptable but not great, Andromeda was very bad (it was very childlish, it felt like they were trying to capitalize on the superhero trend), Anthem.... not comment. For the first time since Origins, it seems like Bioware finally had the time and freedom to make a proper singleplayer game. So far EA always forced them to release games too early or focus on stupid trends they couldn't deliver. First they had to ship DA 2 and ME3 in 2-3 years, then they had to focus the fucking live service model and multiplayer (a singleplayer focused studio making multiplayer live service games, what could posibly go wrong). Now, finally, EA game them the space and freedom they needed to do what they know best, so let's see what they coocked so far.
I don't agree with everything you have said as I think DAI has great dialogue and Andromeda isn't as bad as people say. But I do agree with Anthem. Anthem isn't that great. But I do agree that DAV is being given the chance to be great. They removed the live service elements and have made it into a single player offline game. And they have removed the open world. It looks like it will shape up well. As you said lets see what they have cooked up so far.
@@Knight1029 Inquisition was a huge step down from previous games, even Varrick was far better in DA2. Andromeda, well, just watch Game Sins´ video of Andromeda and you will see some really bad dialogue there. And that's besides the rough state of the game. Again, that was probably because the game wasn't developed by Bioware´s main team and the scope was just too great. Anthem was a complete failure, we all know what happened. But I'm not a hater, so I'm not going to start shitting on a game that didn't even come out. I still believe the reveal trailer was pretty bad, but the gameplay is nothing like the trash people say it is. It's simple, just wait, play and then criticize the game.
@@jonanderetxebarria9944 I like DAI well enough. The only issue I had with Varric he didn't look the same. I kinda like Varric looking a bit ugly. It added to his charm. I have player Andromeda four times. The dialogue isn't that bad. I just don't see it. Now this isn't me saying its perfect. I don't like the change in combat design and the lacking of cinematic dialogue is bad. I just think its better than what most people say it is. Anthem is definitely the least like Bioware game there is. I obviously love the gameplay reveal but I do understand people's issues with it. I respect that. Waiting for the game and judging it before it comes out it a good idea in general to do.
We should, regardless of the game or studio, judge a game for what it is trying to be. Bioware games are always penalized by not being something else, instead of being judged by what they really are. Sad, unfair and infuriating.
Yeah, like if people dislike that Bioware isn't making their kind of RPG then that's fine. Just be honest about it and understand they aren't for you. Judge the game on what it is trying to do.
Nonsense, “judge the game based on what is TRYING to do”? No. Everyone should judge everything based on what it is, not what it’s trying to be, if I try to make a cake but it turns out awful, it’s an awful cake no matter what I’ve tried do do with it. Anthem was a terrible looter shooter, probably the worst loot system in the genre, inquisition just wasn’t a good action rpg. What is it with you guys blaming people for disliking a product that isn’t even that good in the first place?
@@italianspiderman5012 You clearly did not understand what I said. If you tried to make a cake, and it turn out awful, you should be judged by how good of a cake your cake turned out to be, not by how good of a pasta. That is what I'm saying. People have been bashing The Veilguard (even without it being properly released and available for people to experience) because it is very different than Origins, or worse, different than BG3. They should wait and see for themselves if The Veilguard is a good game by itself, not by any other game metric.
@@italianspiderman5012 but you are already aligned with the idea "judge the game based on what it is trying to do." If you were trying to make a cake it will be judged on how good a cake it is. If it is a bad cake then it will be judged as a bad cake. How is that different from what the OP was saying? Yeah Anthem failed as a looter shooter. It was trying to be one but failed. Again how is what you saying not the same as what the OP said.
I think Bioware has struck a pretty good balance between player choice and reasonable limitations on those choices to tell a cohesive story. Imo, that's fine. I don't have much else to say but thank you for the video! Keep it up!! Actually, I'm gonna add, it's weird that diversity is such a problem for some people. It's a fantasy world! It can be whatever, there's no limitations really in that regard, why should it only be white people? This "forced diversity" stuff really got me thinking what it actually means. There are maybe some things out there where the diversity feels very forced, but Dragon Age IS NOT one of them. Heck, I don't think Dragon Age could ever BE one of those "forced diversity" places. The world they built is naturally diverse. We're in a different part of the world than in previous games, of course there's gonna be more differences! The fantasy and sci-fi genres have always been pretty diverse in my experience, maybe not always, but I think it usually is. I think that's cool.
Thank you! I have another video in the works and I hope it will come out somewhat soon. I agree. Bioware has struck a good balance. It all comes together to make a really good game. What is also weird is that DAO just has a lot of PoCs. Besides Duncan their is just a lot of random NPCs that are PoCs. Its weird people are so freaked out by it when DAO just has that. The term "forced diversity" is just a dog whistle for "gays and blacks in media". The people who say that often mean that. They just hate those groups and want them out. But they know they can't just say that so they hide behind words like "forced diversity". As you said there are some media that does feel like forced diversity but that is usually just bad writing or being disingenuous. Dragon Age is not disingenuous at all. But yeah fantasy and sci-fi genres have always been diverse. Because writing in those genres always have you think "What can this world be like?" Which I think is cool to.
I agree. If people want a RPG that is about player freedom then they should play BG3. They shouldn't expect that from Bioware because they aren't trying to make that kind of game.
You seem to be trying to answer a question no one asked. I have never come across anyone that didn't understand that Bioware create mostly heavily story driven RPG's, not sandbox RPG's like Bethesda, the question has always been the degree of freedom provided in the game, a question that has been clouded by the problems the company has had over the last 15 years since EA bought them (some of those problems were very much of their own making).
@@Knight1029 loving it as always!! It's so nice having someone to voice this perspective on bioware, I think It makes a lot of sense and to be honest It's a shame more people don't see it that way and even want Bioware to be like Larian when Bioware have it's a unique way of making crpgs, I've played a lot of those, most of what we have at the time, and I think and the closest thing I got to those Bioware vibes was Rouge Trader and god I wish I could bring more to discussion, but I feel so limited when writing in English :D Wish you more engagement!
@@milirin thank you! For a long time I have lamented the fact that there was no one who really spoke with this perspective. Everyone seems to think Bioware is something they are not. I don't mind if people like Larian's style more or want Bioware to be more like them but man some people just don't understand them or value the type of games they make. I love what Bioware does with the RPG genre. I heard good things about Rouge Trader. I will definitely check it out. I am always on the look for more Bioware like games. I think your English is pretty good. I understood what you were saying. Thank you! I appreciate the engagement.
It's funny you should mention CDPR because they just got lambasted recently. Let me describe every title so far: "IS CDPR TAKING THE KNEE TO WOKE WRITERS, IS CDPR BOWING DOWN TO DEI" yeah that. Really proving dead internet theory true more each day. At this point, I'm reserving any and all opinions of Veilguard until the product actually launches. I have concerns, but I'm far more willing to give it a fair chance now as a side-effect of outrage peddlers poisoning the well.
Horizon feels like a Uncharted game (not a one to one just using it to make a point) with RPG mechanics. Their really isn't a lot of times where the narrative aspect of RPGs comes into play. And the mechanical aspect is very minimal.
Origins gameplay was very good for a CRPG at release, and the majority of CRPG's then and now are player for story first. ARPG's are completely different, which is what Veilgaurd looks like. Therefor, it would only make sense that if 50% of the people don't care too much about the combat system and 50% would 100% prefer a modern real-time-with-pause system that implementing that type of combat would have been the correct call. Instead they went with a _"Spider-Man Remastered"_ style of gameplay without the webs or any valid reason in regards to what the fans who do care wanted. It is also my assumption that the reason you can only have a 3 ability _"Loadout"_ in a fricken single-player fantasy rpg is because the team had a similar system already built for the original multiplayer looter-slasher version of the game and did not have the talent to get a decent rtw/p system in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money. The lack of hyper-attractive women also tells me that they don't care about what their *_straight_* male fans enjoy in games either, but it also kinda sucks for gay chicks too as I know more than a few lesbians and bi women who will *ONLY* date/lay down with 8+ out of 10 women who are borderline swimsuit model attractive. I'm not going to beat that point too much besides saying _"Yep, they are real. I see 4'11"-5'11" women 5 or 6 days a week at the gym who have measurements like 32-36 large "C" breasts, 20-24 inch waists and 34-38 inch hips while weighing between 98 and 135lbs. Are they _"The norm?"_ Of course not, people are fat in general now, but it was the norm 20 years ago, and most women would look like that if they stayed at a healthy *body fat percentage* for their height. It's also a fantasy game, but whatever, Bioware can wait to see how sales turn out knowing that the majority of _"straight"_ guys are not going to be interested in the romance part of their game, which has been a big part of their games for 26 years now. I think it is silly as you can accommodate both audiences pretty darn easily, but instead they'd rather risk EA Motive making the next Mass Effect game? Ridiculous. And that is where the big difference is. Bioware *used* to try to appeal to everyone possible in their game's genre. Now they are aiming squarely at a subset of a subset and telling the other fans that they are wrong for not liking the direction of the game. _"Give it a chance you bigot."_ Well no. Let me play the game for 20 hours for free and I'll give it a shot. I'm not giving them $60 or $70 bucks to _"Give it a shot."_ I'm one of those people who has been playing since BG1. I also like traditionally _sexy_ women. Romances have always been a big part of Bioware games to me, with the most important part being the writing/story which said relationships are a part of. Next would be gameplay. I prefer strategic problem solving or skill based action with numerous options. This game seems like it is simply not something I am going to like. Divinity OS2, Persona 5, Pillars of Eternity DF, Final Fantasy 16, Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn? I'd be fine with combat in that vein, but this just feels _off_ *to me.* I hope the game is good, and if people whose tastes align with my own review the game well then I will probably buy it. if not then I won't. Just like I won't buy Horizon Forbidden West or Spider-Man 2 for _"Uglifying"_ characters for no reason after the fact, I'm not buying a Bioware game that intentionally removes or changes things they already know a huge segment of their audience likes. Blackrock, Vangaurd, State Street etc. will get sick of funding this DEI/ESG bullshit at the expense of fans who aren't quite as PC as they would like sooner rather than later (once the governments stop bailing them out with taxpayer money it is a wrap). This is not about _"Woke"_ content. BG3 was chocked full of Indian Dwarves and African American Gnomes yet no one cared. This is about "Woke" at the expense of "Straight". Include branches for both, make gameplay the focus, or get ready for the game to lose a lot of money. In the case of Veilgaurd and what I assume was at least $300M + marketing, I sincerely hope it is a good game. If it isn't objectively appealing to more than just the one demo *_it appears_* they catered to I just can't see them selling the 10M+ copies EA is going to demand for the money they have invested after ME:A and Anthem, the latter of which was an unmitigated disaster.
Most Dragon Age fans don't particular care about what combat style the game has. Because most Dragon Age fans care about the story, characters and world. Which each Dragon Age games has still retained. I would like DAO's combat back because it would add consistency and all the benefits along side it. But the combat they have now isn't bad. As for why DAV's combat is the way it is, I think you are onto something. But I think the reason is more due to Anthem rather than the game being multiplayer at one point. Because after Anthem Bioware stated that they were using the code base for Anthem. So, whatever quirks or features Anthem had DAV mostly like has it to. Now this isn't a bad thing because reusing tools speeds up development and creates mastery. If they started from scratch again DAV would probably have released in 2026. I have no idea what you are on about here. I don't think a) the DAV companions are unattractive and b) they don't need to be hyper attractive unless it makes sense for their characters. What I mean is that just having good looking character is meaningless unless their is a reason for them to be like that. Character design isn't just eye candy. Its a tool for story telling. Having a companion with scares tells a story. Or having them look beautiful tells a story. But that is thrown out of the window if they are all just hyper attractive. Like I don't get the desire to just have hyper attractive characters in a story game. If this was just a Call of Duty game then why not. But it isn't.
At the end of the day it is every gamer for themselves. There are those who hated ME3 just for the ending, but was "ride or die" for the game Anthem, just as there are those who not only still bash Diablo 3 today, but played and put more money than a $60-$70 game in Diablo Immortal (This includes streamers/influencers) instead of focusing on the real issues of "always online", microtransactions, battle passes, etc in single player focused games. There are those ok with the free to play model in payed for games. To all these gamers, we are at an impasse. Peace is a lie! Keep buying loot boxes and I'll continue playing 'woke' games that are great.
Yeah man. It sucks that gamers are just so contradictory. Like they aren't a monolith but man it sucks that things aren't clear. Like I remember when everyone hated always online and microtractions but now its just seen as normal and inoffensive.
No, what you DONT understand about people not understanding bioware is that people see the superficiality of the choices provided by BioWare and criticize them for it ONLY (I dont think there are people who dont understand them at all) - why give a choice if you will do what you want anyways? (that is the most common complaint I see, which suggests understanding) You waste your time making it, you waste players time picking it and it makes no difference. (I personally like the choices as they add flavour and you can make the main protagonist have the personality you want.) People simply wanna have results that are totally different and quite frankly, that would make the games impossible to make or have any sort of sequels. good options needs to be heavenly and bad options hellish, if the option is the same thing BUT the difference is that your character may be more emotional or cold for the other choice is just not enough of them. What I meant by that. I think people ARE understanding BioWare but hate what they are doing and want them to change into something different. Also a lot of the time their choices would result in the plot not being possible (BUT it could be solved with some short game over cutscene with the villain winning like Baldug gate does it - say you kill Solas immediately because you dont trust the guy and then it shows you that without his guidence you couldnt close the portal and everything got overrun - DA Inquisition has actually just this in the mission failure/death screens like "With the Inquisitor out of the picture Corypheus was able to overwhelm the Inquisition forces and Thedas soon followed" and then you have only the option to accept this as your ending or reload a safe. I think if BioWare added some disasterous endings and enabled them to make stupid choices but canonized actually going full length of the game and have those game overs be just as a fun ending, it might be satisfying them a little :) As for the Woke aspect, I think BW are sexist who make complex female characters and males are usually make as the laugh stock commedy relief like Garrus, Vega etc. Do you think BW comment on EA was genuine or with gun to the head so to speak? I think the answer is clear.
In the video I simply said that Bioware makes RPGs to enhance stories, characters, themes and the world. And since RPGs are about making choices Bioware has those choices be informed by the story, characters or themes. Such as in DAO where a lot of the choices are framed as which option will help with the Blight more. Or how a choice effects the world. Studios like Larian have their choices be informed by what the player wants to do. If they player wants to kill all the tieflings then they will be allowed to do that. Both ways of using an RPG are valid. What I was talking about in my video is that people think Bioware is trying to make RPGs where player freedom is the priority. When that simply isn't the case. You can dislike them for not being about that but you can't say Bioware is trying to be like that. If you do then you don't understand them. I don't think I said anywhere in my video that I would be opposed to fail states. I think that would be interesting and show what would happen if the player died or if the villain succeeded. But it has to be done with purpose. Especially considering that Bioware's stories wouldn't work if you could kill everyone whenever. Like if you could kill Loghain that fundamental changes what DAO's story does. What? How is Garrus or Vega "laugh stock commedy relief"? Is it because Garrus and Vega are funny? Additionally, how is having male characters (not saying Garrus or Vega are "laugh stock commedy relief" nor most male characters in Bioware games are like) be funny somehow sexist? That makes no sense.
I understand Bioware, but my issue is I'm sooo tired of marvel movies, and now these game look like some mash up of marvel, and pixar movies. It just looks like it is made for a 8 year old. maybe I'm just old but this game just looks silly. I played D.A. Inq. and just refuse to eat this slop any more
The thing I have learned about Bioware is that it's not the Bioware that used to be my highest regarded studio anymore and I have no reason to be excited about anything they work on any longer. And freedom of customization is definitely not why.
True. The Bioware today are not the devs and team leaders that made the games right until Inquisition for Dragon Age. The present devs and team leaders are a different group and the question is do they understand what the old writers and devs intended for DA? The legacy that's left for the newcomers to uphold. What is the old devs' vision? Look at the first DA, the answers are there. When the lore keeper of DA resigned, I was worried. When more of the old devs and the writers left and development for DA dragged, it's already bad. Then the VG trailer popped, then the game play, and I know I need not bother any more. The Bioware I know, is gone. They were already gone when Andromeda hit.
@@OG21020 I don't know how you can say that when its clear the developers now are veterans. Patrick Weekes, lead writer, was on DAO and ME1. And the implication that the leaders that left didn't pass any knowledge down is absurd. The current developers are made up of people who were taught the lessons of other developers and veterans. The issues Bioware faced with Anthem and Andromeda were not on them but were on EA.
@@Knight1029 Because I loved their games ever since my childhood, to the point of having considered them my favorite studio from the days of Neverwinter Nights well into the Mass Effects and Dragon Ages. Now they haven't made a single game I even liked since ME3 (by which and Inquisition I had several points of complaint more than usual, but they were still good) and they're only getting worse every release. It's not like I can point to specific people, decisions or events. Maybe EA is to blame but that doesn't change the fact they're putting out nothing but (in my opinion) crap.
When people say "Woke", no one means "Progressive" nothing wrong with being progressive. what they mean by "Woke" is forced DEI, the kind you can feel is just there for the sake of DEI and not the story or world-building. the current state of DEI does more exclusion, the opposite of what they're supposed to do. take the same s3x relations, when they push it too much in their products, it doesn't promote inclusion, it just excludes the majority of their statistically straight players! Nice video, I never got the hate Bioware got. every game doesn't need to be genre-defining. These types of overreactions of gamers are going to kill franchises and developers in this "no second chance" environment of the gaming industry, Although I admit Bioware has gotten more second chances than any other developer. Back in the DA:O days, almost no game was able to do what Origins was doing, it became a staple in the genre. nowadays on the other hand, what Origins did is the bare minimum of an RPG, so when people make an RPG even better than Origins, it'll never be prased like Origins because as good as it may be, it doesn't push the genre like Origins did and gamers somehow expect the same feeling with every new DA game as they felt with Origins. It's not fair to expect a developer to push one of the most over-saturated genres every time, just let them make their game, it's either good or bad, there's no point overreacting to it!
Every time I see "woke" or "DEI" being used it is a stand in for progressivism. Because everything they are complaining about seems to not be actually concerned with disingenuous representation. Because if it was then the examples they give of bad representation are just wrong. What DAV is doing is not bad representation nor does it exclude anyone. Just because all the characters are pansexual doesn't exclude straight people. They can still romance the opposite sex if they want. Additionally, sexual orientation was never a big factor in Dragon Age. It wasn't apart of someone's identity. You can say, "What about Dorian?" And my response would be that his story wasn't about his identity being challenged. His dad and mom don't care that he only has sex with men. What they care about is him continuing their bloodline. Dorian's story is more about agency over ones self. Now technically the behind the scenes does reveal Dorian's story is more about identity but it is written in such a way where it makes sense for the world. Now this isn't me saying bad representation or exclusion doesn't happen. It does. But I don't think its happening with DAV. I do think those people are setting themselves up for failure expecting each Dragon Age game to be genre defining or something similar. Sometimes just having a good game is enough. And often those genre defining games come from the desire to make a good game. You can't make genre defining games by force. It just happens.
@@Knight1029 That's how you feel and not the real reason, there are of course people always mad about these things for their own stupid intolerances. but the majority of people have legitimate reasons to dislike DEI. and it's not progressivism. if you actually stop that kind of thinking for a second (DEI=progressivism) you'll actually see my reasoning makes sense. I haven't been following DA drama, but if I'm gonna say what irks me a little about it so far it's the black elf main character they showed off(yes I know it's a custom character but let's face it, we're gonna see them as side characters in the game). now let me explain before calling me intolerant. Elves throughout fantasy have always been well established and never been that color until recent years, we even have dark elves or night elf variants and I don't think anyone would say they are black, they had their own distinct races and Lores. there's no LOGICAL reason they suddenly have that variant other than senseless DEI. even in the real world there are logical explanations and reasons for the existence of various colors and races of humanity. that's what I mean by nonsense DEI. I don't like it because it's lazy not because they're black. Elves always had different names based on their races, if a black Elf makes sense, please, tell me the Lore accurate name of their race? now they might have retconned some things to add this race to the game and at this point, I've gotten used to every new DA game retconning the past games instead of "adding" to the lore(it's not a good way of expanding the world but that's just how BioWare is.) The same goes with Pan side characters, it robs them of one aspect of their identity. I didn't care for it in StarField and I don't care for it here. Liara being Bi, Dorian being gay, or Solas only dating an Elf F main character, or Sera being gay all make sense with their characters, world-building, and development. it enriches their personalities and the world they live in. EVERY character being Pan makes zero sense, it pulls the player out of the role-playing experience. it's a cop-out move on the developer's side. it's a move to make everyone happy at the cost of the character's dignity. Making every character Pan is increadibly regressive. a trent I really hope doesn't become common in gaming. think of the amazing moments YOUR main character had with their romantic partners in past games, Tali, Liara, Morrigan, Cassandra, they're all empty and meaningless if they could just swing in every direction with no reason. I just started playing Cyberpunk 2077 a few days ago and last night Panam rejected my female V's attempt because she's only into Male characters and it adds so much to the roleplaying experience. I have no problems with a character's race or sexual identity as long as it has good reasons and not random DEI. how is random DEI good for roleplaying immersion?! IF they really want progressive DEI, they could make a kingdom or continent where those races are the majority with their own unique heritage, architecture, costumes, etc. Now if that was the case and I see a black elf in the game, I know where they came from, it would make sense they're in the game. but no, they just want the credit for DEI without putting in the hard work. it's the same as big companies changing their Logos into a rainbow in pride month without doing literally anything that matters to the community. Identity matters and this type of DEI has no Identity. it inherently can't be progressive without Identity. They just try to Americanize this world by putting everything in there without their own unique identities and it's gonna end up flat on its face. think about it like this, Black people or people of color in our world all have their own unique identities rooted in their motherland culture but in video games, all the colored people are basically the same as every other character. if you call that progressive, it's just far too shallow. you can't make a generic character and change the skin color and call it progressive, that is the definition of senseless DEI.
@@f.m848 as I said in my reply I can see there being legitimate concerns with forced diversity. Dragon Age Veilguard is not one of them. It isn't disingenuous and it isn't going against established lore. In DAO there are many dark skinned elves. In the Dalish Elf Origins you can see two dark skinned elves. Here is the link. static.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonage/images/5/55/Dalish_gathering.png/revision/latest?cb=20150618153242 In the bottom right corner they are there. In the Zathrian's camp you see Elora who is a dark skinned elf. And Zervran exists. He is a dark skinned elf. Since the beginning Dragon Age has always had dark skinned elves. What Davrin being dark skinned is not new and not DEI influence. To claim that having Davrin is going against the lore establish in Dragon Age is an odd thing to say. When it has always been there. My issue with having everyone be pansexual isn't due to role playing issues but characters feeling less distinct. Everyone has their own preferences. Representing that in game makes the characters feel more real. But making them all pansexual can harm that. Now there are other ways to make them more distinct from one another but that is a layer removed. Why Bioware did this though I don't think is because of DEI or anything like that. Why they did it was to allow players to romance who they want. People didn't like getting rejected by Cassandra as a female Inquisitor and so they just made them all pansexual. On one hand I don't mind that because I like being able to romance them with whatever characters. But on the other hand I feel like it removes a layer of distinction. Bioware isn't making Dragon Age more "modern". Dragon Age has always had dark skinned characters and characters of all sexualities. I don't see how this is bad DEI.
@@Knight1029 As I said they need to have a reason. anyone can make dark-skinned characters. my point is WHY are they dark-skinned. I also looked up the image you sent and they're clearly not black(they're literally my own skin color)! they are either tanned or a better explanation would be half-blood(I know they're not) but it actually makes sense to get the darker skin from the human parent! but an elve warden so dark that you can't even see at night! just HOW?! I'm not saying that shouldn't exist, I'm saying give it a reason! make him a little more light-skinned and say he's a half-elf, or retcon the game again and say dark elves from another continent exist. something that makes sense. people didn't come into existence in every color and race, it happened over time and distance. it reminds me of that one completely black Viking in AC Valhalla that never made any sense! "And Zervran exists. He is a dark-skinned elf." so that's your standard of dark-skinned? come on man! you gonna compare a tanned skin tone to Davrin's? Lol - in our world, we have evolutionary and geological reasons for it. - in Warcraft the difference between Highborne and Kaldorei elves is magical, geological, and social. - in The Elder Scrolls there are over 10 different types and colors and looks for elves and every single one of them has a detailed explanation and lore behind why they are the way they are. you don't see short, or fat, or colored High elves in TES like it's a common thing and there are lore-accurate reasons for it! You can't press the "randomize skin color" button and say we're done. that's the difference between a cheap world development and a well-realized one. I don't remember a single dark-skinned elf like Davrin in all 3 DA games so you can't even say it's well-established and lore-accurate! Yes, they are making DA "modern", every single new DA game has been doing that little by little. you're telling me you didn't notice in Inquisition there's not a single influential male character in the Inquisition or the story in general? it's just Cassandra and Leliana and no one else even comes close to these two not even the main character(not Cullen, let's face it, he's just muscle and not even that). not that I mind it, because of having a female prophet starting their religion, women have more influence and power in matters of faith in this world, and that makes a lot of sense. that's it. that's all I want. if you want to introduce a black elf character after 3 games with not a single black elf, give it a good reason. that's all I'm asking otherwise it's a cheap SBI level of DEI. I agree about your standing on Pan characters. personally, I don't care much about romance in games anyway. but everyone being Pan is lazy character writing that just cheapens their characters. Who's your potential Romance option btw? I'm thinking if the Qunari Taash has a cool personality like Karlach in BG3 I'll romance her, otherwise, I'm not interested in any of them until I know their characters.
@@f.m848 my man I don't get how you can't call them dark skin. Where I am from that is dark skin. Additionally, in the real world Obama is considered black even though in other parts of the world he would be called tanned. Also I find the notion, "There needs to be a reason for them being dark skinned" odd. Like that logic extents to "There needs to be a reason for Leliana being bisexual." Which is dumb. Dragon Age doesn't seem to have skin work the same way our world does. The sun doesn't darken skin. So, it seems that some people are just born with different skin colors. That's fine. The issue comes into play when it is done for a modern reason. Dragon Age just has dark skinned characters. They just exist. That's fine. My romance could be Taash. Though when I play the game itself it might change. I do think all the characters look great though.
I don't really blame EA. EA wanted Mass Effect 2 just as quickly as Dragon Age 2. The Mass Effect team pushed for 6 more months than the Dragon Age team, though. Mass Effect 2 ended up being a great game, whereas Dragon Age 2 had more issues. I still like or love both games. EA distributed all of the games in both franchises. It's hard to celebrate certain titles made under EA ownership and criticize others due to EA ownership of BioWare. It doesn't work both ways.
I do. EA caused a lot of issues. EA is the one who demanded a DA2 to fill the gaps of Swtor while ME2 started development after ME1. DA2 exists in the way it does because they wanted it out to fill a gap in their quarter. And it wasn't EA who made those games. It was Bioware. ME2 is good because of Bioware, not EA. Also I don't get the implication that DA2 could have just demanded more time when it existed to fill a gap. If they asked for more time that would go against what EA wanted.
EA also owned BioWare when they released 7 of their top 10 best-selling games. You don't have to like EA, but BioWare has sold more games under EA ownership.
@@lumina1104 I still think EA is a problem for Bioware. I recognize that without EA Bioware would have collapsed due to a lack of funding for too many projects in development. But they are still a issue.
Of course videogame will be curated. I mean if Bg3 was DnD game, party would have convinced DM to insert "Descent into Avernus" somewhere in act 3. 😂😂 Thing is about DA2 and 3, they are simply did not scratched that"Epic fantasy" itch that NWN and DAO perfectly did.
Yeah? All video games are curated to some extent. But there is a spectrum. Bioware makes RPGs that are very curated with a fair bit of freedom. But when compared to BG3 they seem like linear narratives. I think DA2 and DAI are pretty cool games. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
@@Knight1029 Modern games in general give less freedom. Its not just Bioware, giving less and less freedom with each generation basically. You cant kill NPC, like you were able in BG 1,2 and NWN. Same with Bethesda, you cant pull stuff in FO4 and SF, that you were able in Daggerfall and Morrowind. I would say company from US in general give less and less freedom, and provide more curated experience. While companies fro EU and JP still release games where we can kill everyone and go full murderhobo, when it comes to RPGs And I absolutely hated DA2, and DAI was just boring. For me it was more boring than Starfield xD
@@Sithishe if you don't like how RPGs of today are then that's fine. I don't think asking Bioware to be something they aren't is good. Why would I ask Larian to be like Bioware? That would be dumb. I like DA2 and DAI.
@@Knight1029 I think people are asking Bioware to be what it uses to, in Kotor days, etc. And yeah I specifically dont like modern US rpgs. I absolutely love modern RPGs that comes from EU and JP. My favourite part of JP rpgs is when they use old shakespeare English for older races, like elves, dragons, etc. really gives that medieval vibe.
@@Sithishe so Bioware should do what they did with Kotor which was have a curated protagonist, restrict who the player can kill and have conflicts resolve in the way they want? Kotor had you playing as Revan a character who existed prior to the player having loads of establish backstory that the player can't influence. Kotor didn't allow the player to kill anyone they wanted. Example you couldn't even attempt to kill the Jedi. Sure it would have failed but isn't it good for RPGs to allow the player to do something even if it doesn't work? Kotor had conflicts resolve in the way Bioware wanted and not the player. Couldn't the player just have killed or force persuade the Republic guard on Manaan to get to the Star Forge Map? Sure but Kotor wanted the game to play out its way. You can say those are bad things but I would say that is just what Bioware has always done and tried to do. They aren't making RPGs where player freedom is the most important thing. That's fine if you don't like modern RPGs. But why are you asking Bioware to change who they are? I wouldn't ask FromSoftware to change who they are. Their games aren't for me. So, I am not gonna ask them to appeal to me.
I mean if Bioware isn't making the RPGs you want that's fine. They are doing something else. I am glad their are developers that cater to what you want. Having more, different, types of RPGs is better.
Seems like you feel into a trap of thinking about BioWare as an entity, it’s not, it’s a studio with people working in it, and these people make games. Modern BioWare has absolutely nothing to do with the team that made ME or dragon age, it’s BioWare only by name.
Do you not think that people join a studio to make the the type of games they produce? People joined Bioware because of the type of RPGs they make. And Bioware has continued to make their type of RPG.
Veilguard doesn't feel like Dragon Age anymore because of the comic look, Solas looks so ugly. Instagram filter made it to Thedas. The demons.. a disco - fever dream Only two companions instead of three. The rest is totally fine, I want to romance the elven Warden and Neve if BioWare stops using Instagram filters, every characters face is way too smooth and flawless.
I just don't get you. The game doesn't look bad and it does look like Dragon Age. Sure it doesn't look exactly like the other games but it still resembles it. I think the game will turn out fine.
THIS IS ALL A MOO POINT, people dont really know what RPGs are, that is why DIABLO still goes on after all these years, you made it out to be that the majority of people are RPG elites. bioware's mass effect and dragon ages are like the witcher games, whiles compering them to bethesda is just one big mistakes, bethesda is lazy, all their features are stagnated, protagonist not having VO are relegated to indie, budgeted, double A games only, because you need to welcome the normies is what is the most important, you cant say you are making a AAA game and what it launch is just any of the shadow run games
BioWare is not misunderstood. The audience is expecting more Mass Effect-like games, which is what they are known for. And what they build. A marginal amount of people may interject into the discourse surrounding BioWare with baseless expectations of infinite freedom and character expression, but they are not the kind of people to inform themselves on the reality of BioWare titles via a youtube video. What people expect from BioWare is : more of what they have produced in the past. There is no significant or widespread misunderstanding and the studio is very far from being the most misunderstood. The only mistake is paying attention to this discourse. Look where it is witnessed (Reddit, X...) and see it for what it is : a natural consequence of an unhealthy platform profiting from unending discourse, facts or reality not being needed.
I have seen plenty of people misunderstanding what Bioware is and what their games are about. Look at the constant comparisons between BG3 and DAO. Those games are similar only on the surface. Yet everyone thinks that BG3 is somehow a spiritual successor or inspired by the game deeply. BG3 is a game where the player has a lot of freedom on what they can do and what character they can make. DAO is not that. Yet people can't help but think they are similar to their core. A lot of people misunderstand Bioware. It is evident through the BG3 and DAO discourse and through other conversations. Even DAO fans misunderstand that the game gave you a lot of freedom. When in reality it just didn't.
The problem is Biowares current hiring practice and which voice actors that are being employed. Americans that think USA problems qnd social ilks are the only thing that matters. It's clearly American racism against the entire world. Americans think their issues are the only valid issues and are the only issues in the world.
I'm still missing something that picks me up as a fan. So far I've only heard about romances and genders, about a no-die mode and hairstyles. Where is my tactical combat system, my blood magic, my nightmare mode and how it has evolved. Don't get me wrong, the other one picks me up too and I'm looking forward to it. But it's not really anything new, Dragon Age has always been diverse and open and that's a good thing. It feels a bit like they listened a lot to the fans who played Dragon Age mainly for easy and romance, but Dragon Age is more than that... I'm still waiting for them to show me the other one, I hope.
I think DAV is gonna be for a lot of fans, mainly the one who engage with story, lore and characters, but not for the fans who liked the mechanics. Which, don't get me wrong, does suck in a way. It is something Bioware could have continued but didn't. There is a lot of lost potential.
@@Knight1029 Well I'm not that passionate about the topic but you keep saying that the critics are wrong... "but not really" or you misinterpret what the critics say like with the original developers being gone. Of course not all of them are gone, they mainly say it when referring to the people who worked on Mass Effect.
@@nihlus9589 what? When did I say any of that? What I said was that the people criticizing Bioware are measuring them against standards they aren't trying to achieve. They assume Bioware is making an RPG where player freedom is the goal. When in reality that isn't the case. Is it true that Bioware games fail at giving the most amount of player freedom? Yes, but that is like saying Doom fails as a visual novel game. Is that true? Yes, but that is missing the point of Doom. Likewise that is missing the point of Bioware.
What? Dragon Age has been successful financial and critical after DAO? You do realize that DAO lost game of the year in 2009? Whereas DAI won it's year? If you don't like how Bioware makes RPGs that's fine. Just be honest about it.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 Because games are subjective for everyone, and what some random critic on the internet tells me is their game of the year means nothing.
@@Adanu191 Pretty sure that argument can be make to every game around I can say I hate FromSoftwares games because it's too hard and not good story mode and it comes across dumb to others.
@@Knight1029 want sey it but afraid you tube rule wont sey it but sort story this some time trow our face thet some of use dont want our game mean ofc ever free choice sould be option turn it off
@@slagwerk111 what? I am sorry I don't get what you mean. Are you trying to say that there are some things you don't want in your game? If so what is it? Also you can say what you want. I will check behind the scenes of my "Held for Review" tab to see if UA-cam hide your comment. And then allow it to go through.
4:03 C'mon man, thats a weak ass argument in the defense of pre-established characters, and its not what old school bioware/black isle fans are complaining about. In about two minutes you laid out the entirety of several games' protags pre established identity. That should have told you something, and that something is BW/BL was responsible for the barest of bones and it was up to the player to flesh out the protag as they saw fit. Thats how you build a connection with a player, thats how you keep your games played 20+ years into the future. You think _anyone_ is going to be playing the new Dragon Age, or the new Saint's Row, Fallout 76, etc even five years from now?
What? I imagine old school Bioware/Black Isle fans would understand that they never had control on who their character could be. Establishing the identity of the protagonist isn't just some small thing. It changes how a game's story, characters and themes operate. If the protagonist is a blank slate a different story has to be made to accommodate them. Additionally, I think those old fans would recognize that Bioware is still allowing the player to flesh out the protagonist as they see fit. Bioware gives pre-established backstories and sometimes personalities but lets the player choice how to operate them. That is still true to this day. The only new Bioware game that isn't like that is Anthem. Yeah? I think people will be playing the new Dragon Age game for many years. Like they have with every Dragon Age game.
@@Knight1029 You're being needlessly pedantic about the 'proper' definition of pre-defined characters, but I'd expect nothing less from someone delusional enough to enjoy the slop that gets passed for video games the past decade and believes they'll be classics enough to warrant future installments on _their_ merits alone.
RPGs where the main character isn't voiced, doesn't have an established background, leaving you the player to make up one; I know many RPGamers love this. But it doesn't work, whatever you make up in your head your character is, doesn't always fit within the what video game itself allows. It's literally impossible to account for that, which for me is very immersion breaking. I'd rather a custom main character that you choose 1 of many backgrounds to shape their own narrative within the game's world. Yes it's limited, but there are clear rulings and guidelines how they fit in as a whole. Mass Effect does exactly this and it worked very well for the trilogy.
I completely agree. I do think a blank slate protagonist can work but they will never have the immersion or story support that a curated voiced protagonist will have. The game will be able to actually use the protagonist more effectively. Which is what I love so much about Bioware games.
Do you agree with what I said about Bioware being misunderstood or do you think I am wrong? Please let me know.
I think the noise on the internet has a lot to do with SBI, a kind of group which gives people who support LGBT bad names and for them anything remotely "Woke" means bad. Let's not forget Hogwarts Legacy has LGBT, yet it got hate for J . K Rowling yet most selling game of 2023 same attack Starfield got for 'PRONOUNCE'. Yet it has over 15m+ both PC and XBOX and if you check on the internet it got so much hate posts there.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 even if SBI didn't exist there would still be people who would complain. They either would find another company or just complain anyways. They aren't particularly rational.
Man I will never get over the guy who screamed "PRONOUNS" like that man was way to funny. Especially considering that Starfield sold so much.
@@Knight1029 Yup that guy is still so funny 😂 like it wasn't an issue in Cyberpunk where you can be FUTA or Baldur Gate 3 it has 'PRONOUNCE!' Yet it wasn't an issue 😂 another funny thing I remember they got accessibility for GOD MODE on Easy like dude you can always turn it off make custom difficulty or go NIGHTMARE where you can't change difficulty.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 these people just love yo complain. Because fundamental they just hate "wokeness". But hey we get really funny videos out of it.
Seeing them get fake or legitimately mad about accessibility features that they can turn off. Like is someone holding a gun to their head forcing them to play on easy or what?
@@Knight1029There are plenty people who are legitimately mad Elden Ring added pause menu saying it breaks game.
Can I add one more thing? I know, I know, lol. But I see a lot of people talking about how free they were to make a lot of different choices in Origins. Origins was made originally as a one off game. Though BW had hopes they'd make more, they weren't sure if it would even sell that much, so yeah, they let you kill npcs and gave you that freedom. As soon as it was announced that there was going to be a franchise, they had to account not only for the story they wanted to tell in this game, but acknowledge your past choices in a different game/s. I can't think of any franchise that has done that, having separate protagonists in the same world while respecting your previous choices. Unless someone can enlighten me, what BW does with DA is unique.
Its cool. I don't mind adding more to the conversation.
You make a good point there. Even David Gaider said that if he knew their would be an immediate sequel to DAO he would have limited how many choices the player had and written fewer epilogue slides. They allowed the player to do so much because they thought they weren't gonna make a new Dragon Age game for a long while.
The only other studio who carried over and recognize the player's choices is CDPR but they are far worse at it than Bioware. In Witcher 3 they retcon the player's choice to kill someone and make the big choice in Witcher 2 meaningless in Witcher 3. Bioware is the only studio who puts in effort in respecting the player's choices from the previous games. Not even Larian does that. They just skip a hundred years and pretend nothing happened.
I feel this is a really important point. Yes DA:O is great on its own, but it's not a great start of a franchise of reactive games because it simply does crerate too many varibles for future games to account for. And I feel like all the subsequent DA games get flack for lacking Origins' range of choices and variables, which they could never really do.
A franchise with the reactivity of DA is ambitious, but it's also impractical to actually create. Bioware is always ddomed to walk a line between what would be amazing and what is possible to create.
@@richardhollis3783 I do not care, Bioware should have found a way to expand the choices from Origins not limit them.
Another way to look at it is even with the overabundance of choice that you have in something like BG3, your adventure is still curated. It's a video game. The devs can offer you thousands of choices and record hundreds of variations of reactions to what you choose, but there is currently no way to REALLY have an infinite amount of choices and reactions... that's still limited to imaginations and tabletop rpgs.
Great video!
BG3 is definitely up there with Fallout New Vegas with giving the player a lot of freedom to do whatever. But even then there is a limit to that freedom. The player can't just decide to leave and go somewhere else.
Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed the video.
Great points. This is why I actually enjoy Bioware games the most. For me it's the perfect amount of "choice". I've played all bioware games except bg1&2 so I never understand people comparing Bioware now to BG3 for example. They aren't trying to be that anymore and haven't been that for a long time.
And I also have DAO nostalgia big time, my all time favourite game, but I'm just grateful we get more content in this incredible setting. I'm not getting hung up on the lack of a tactical view.
@@Stuffeddodo thank you! I am glad I made good points.
I honestly think it's because most people don't understand what Bioware is even trying to do. They made up their minds on what they think they are trying to do an get mad when it doesn't happen.
I love DAO to. I played it 11 times. It counts for something but the tactics gameplay was not why I loved it so much.
@@Knight1029 Plus People asking Bioware to be Larian's Studio is dumb they are not the same Game Company.
@@mattstansbeary3068 I just don't get it. It feels like they all want one type of RPG. When that would suck. I am not a big fan of Larian's style but I am happy knowing that people love their style. More RPGs that are different is better than fewer.
@@mattstansbeary3068 LOL same let's not forget one is Indie Belgium Studio another is AAA Canadian studio big culture difference. 😂
Bioware has always created curated experiences because they're telling very specific stories. They give you freedom in how you approach the world, but it's always been limited to the confines of the story they're telling.
You can not have true "open" experiences and a singular, coherent story. By way of comparison, Bethesda gives you a lot of freedom, but none of their stories are particularly complex or even necessarily memorable. That's the trade-off. At least until AI reaches a point where it can become a defacto "dungeon master," addressing every possible outcome on the fly.
Despite the pushback against such things, I actually prefer a voiced protagonist. It's more immerive for me, and it makes me feel like my character is part of the story and not just an observer.
Its just Bioware's way of approaching RPGs. David Gaider (lead writer on all the Dragon Age games) said his style of DMing is very curated. So, it just goes to show that Bioware has always wanted to create curated stories.
Not that a open experience and singular coherent story is contradictory its just they are just not complimenting each other's strengths. They are at odds with one another. So, a studio has to choose which one to do.
I also like voice protagonists. I dislike how the HoF just doesn't talk and can tell when they could have given a big speech its given to another character. Its breaks immersion knowing that my character isn't actually apart of the world.
@Knight1029 My GM style was also "curated," as my players didn't tend to do well with an "open" format.
I'm currently playing through DA: O again, and yeah, it's frustrating to choose a dialogue option and then have Alistair clarify what I'm saying, like my character is an idiot.
I generally prefer the Bioware "experience" over the Bethesda one. I like Bethesda games, but there's not a lot of story depth. I also prefer to have a well-rounded party mix over a (mostly) silent companion. Bioware games just feel more "alive."
@@drewtheunspoken3988 I am gonna GM soon and I know my style is more curated.
Yeah it sucks that you can't have a back and forth with a silent protagonist. It just feels like I am being talked to rather than talking with.
Same. I occasionally get the feeling to play a Bethesda game but its mostly for the feeling of exploration. Not the story. While Bethesda has a lot of great systems to make the world feel real, I think Bioware still does it better.
I enjoyed this video. I was very glad to see creators making rational arguments about BioWare games in stark contrast to the angry weirdos declaring that BioWare went woke because of EA and Black Rock. Which is just an absolutely wild take that I can’t believe more than one person maintains for a game company that has made games with gay romances for almost 20 years. Not adding much to the discourse here, but I wanted to post a comment for engagement :)
Its cool. I like it when anyone cares to comment. It also makes me a bit happier. And thank you for the engagement!
I will never get these people who claim to be "fans" of the series because its clear they haven't player a Bioware game or were paying attention.
They did go woke.
@@dobelEXP dang didn't know they went woke in 2003 with Juhani in Kotor. Or in 2009 with Leliana and Zervran.
@@dobelEXP So they weren't woke when Dragon Age world building and story writing was done by David a gay man ? Or first one to make Star Wars having LGBT character ? 😂
There are people who don't understand why Bioware decides to add in a lot of LGBT stuff in their RPGs like Dragon Age and Mass Effect. First of all, it's a Canadian Gaming Company that's been supporting the LGBT community since gay marriage was legalized in Canada at around 2005. Second, Bioware is trying to market their games to everyone, including people from the LGBT Community. Sure Dragon Age Inquisition was banned from India for have gay romance options, but that didn't stop the game from reaching a lot of sales success. Lots of games were banned from certain countries. Example: Mortal Kombat 2011 was banned from Australia for explicit depictions of dismemberment, decapitation, disembowelment and other brutal forms of slaughter. Some people complained that Dragon Age Inquisition was bad for having gay romances, despite the fact that Dragon Age always had gay romances since Origins. And besides, Dragon Age is one of those games where players can romance any companion they might have feelings for, no matter what the race and gender is. Baldur's Gate 3 did the same thing with having gay romances and that game was considered the best game of 2023. Fire Emblem Three Houses had gay romances and that game won best strategy game of 2019. All that I'm saying is that it's Bioware's choice to have gay romances in their games because their country supports the LGBT community.
I also think there is an element that Bioware feels like its the right thing to do. Because supporting people to live how they want is also an important factor to consider.
Regardless, I agree with what you said. Some people just don't understand why Bioware has and supports the LGBT community when in reality it is quite simple.
I have to give correction here it was EA's decision not Bioware they self censored themselves and its stupid because The Last Of Us 2,Mass Effect 3,Baldur Gate 3,Spiderman 2 come just fine no cut or censorship and the LAW in India where Article 377 no longer exist meaning being Gay isn't criminalized anymore 😂 they were being sissy funny DAO & DA2 Sells well but issue on DAI ? How idiotic.
@Knight1029 I also believe that it has had a very positive impact in some people's lives, I know of some people in the forums who were initially against same-sex relationships but then thanks to Romances with characters like Leliana, Zevran and Dorian ( in addition to the whole roster of DA:II) have changed their minds dramatically. I think in its own small way it has helped change many people's minds.
@@edoardoturco8780 it definitely helps. The more common same-sex relationships are the more normal and okay they seem. Its important to celebrate when games like Dragon Age make being queer a normal thing.
This is a really interesting, insightful video you've put together. I overall agree with a lot of your points, and you actually put into words something I'd always felt and not really been able to describe with your discussion on the type of rpgs Bioware makes. Their games aren't on-rails per se, but they are made and written to tell a story and to express certain themes. The choices we get give us the opportunity to engage with that story and those themes in different ways, with some extra choices sprinkled in to let us express our characters in ways that help to make them feel more unique and personalized. And honestly I think I like that approach better than the BG3 approach, where my character ended up feeling very empty and disconnected from the world.
Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed the video.
I often felt like no one understands what Bioware is and are trying to judge them on standards they aren't trying to meet. So, many people seem to think they are trying to making a RPG with absolute player freedom. But in reality they are using RPGs to tell stories or to enhance stories, characters, the world and themes. I am glad I was able to get that across.
I also prefer Bioware's approach. It just makes my character feel more alive and connected with the world. Its one of my biggest issues with BG3 as well. I just feel so disconnected from everything.
It's such a crappy feeling not getting what you want but alas - the gaming industry not pandering towards a specific demographic is natural. I really believe that the industry no longer elevates the previous 'gamer archtype' as the standard anymore and as such all we will see from that group (NOT ALL OF COURSE MY BEAUTIFUL FRIENDS) is alot of overt complaints about pandering and wokeness which is nothing but ironic as now they are what they feared lolol.
They hate the fact they aren't the only group or the most pandered group anymore. What's happening isn't them being erased its just that everyone is getting pandered to. Which is fine. I like it when their are games that appeal to everyone or are just for some people. That's cool.
First Comment!
I Like Your Viewpoint Knight It clearly shows a gap between Young and Old Audience and understanding changes.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 first comment indeed.
Thank you! I am glad I articulated my point in the video.
I think a lot of younger audiences tend to take the series as a whole while older audiences take it as a change. Which is very interesting on its own.
@@Knight1029 True another point I think is funny they hate Inqusitition being MMO RPG style or fetch quest ( Like Dragon Age series or companion quest isn't that) then they cry new one isn't like Dragon Age type but more like Witcher 3,God Of War (2018),Dragon Dogma type and not many abilities or can't control your team (which those two changes I dislike) is a problem now the inconsistencies is too damn high like what do you want now ? 😂
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 honestly it's just because they want to complain. They have no positions other than to complain. Whatever they can say to dislike Dragon Age is good. Even if it's contradictory.
@@MrApoorvaSingh753We want Dragon Age origins 2 is that so hard to understand?
@@MrApoorvaSingh753You clearly haven’t played Origins if you think it’s companions quests and side quests were meaningless fetch quests like in inquisition. Each quest in origins had a sense of urgency and either was relevant to the plot or helped to push the story forward with rewards and later consequences. Nothing like the pointless wartable quests in inquisition.
An argument I see is, "How can Bioware make the combat so causal when BG3 shows you can make complex gameplay and be super successful?"
As much as people online criticize various AAA RPGs for being too actiony, there's a reason why studios moved away from the combat of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. The truth is that RPGs would not be as big now if studios sticked to the hardcore/janky mechanics of the 90's and early 2000's. Now, of course happy that BG3 sold 10 million copies while being a more tradional CRPG game. That does not change the fact that Veilguard has been development before Divinity original sin 2 was even announced. Even if we assumed the real development started in 2021 (which is very likely), BG3 was in early access for a year from the point. I do not believe that Bioware has anymore goodwill left from both EA and the public to delay the game another 3 years to make Veilguard more BG3.
I'm fine with people being skeptical/having low expectations for veilguard. The game has clearly been through development hell. But people shouldn't just mark the game for death before it's released and judge by fair standards. Not standards that was only raised a year ago.
I do think its important to judge the game when its released and not before. We lack context for how it plays out. It could be good or bad. But stating either one is just foolish. People can obviously not like what they are seeing but that isn't the same as writing the game off as bad.
Also I think a large part of BG3's success isn't due to it being a more traditional RPG but rather it being cinematic. BG3 is very similar to DOS2 combat wise. But DOS2 didn't sell as much or was as popular because it wasn't as cinematic. What I think BG3 taught the industry is that cinematic games sell. Which was already known. Another point to why BG3 being cinematic was the reason for its success is looking at Rouge Trader. Sure it is a popular game and sold well but it isn't anywhere near the level of BG3.
You are wrong. No one single factor makes a game great. BG3 has almost everything right, great story, gameplay, really great characters and also cinematography & music. Games like Witcher 3, Baldur Gate 3 stays with us even after finishing it. I'll never forget Geralt, Ciri or most BG3 characters, and the overall experience I had in these games.
@@ati3473 what are you trying to say here?
Saw a video the other day saying DA Veilguard is practically porn, and people were agreeing with it. Idiocy.
What? I need to know who said that. That's wild dude. I know it has nudity and will have sex scenes but come on. I can't stop laughing.
@@Knight1029 all I remember is that the guy had a backwards grey cap on.
@@wxyoung691 that's like every dumbass youtuber. Man I would love to see that. That would be so funny.
@@Knight1029 think I found it. The Trent Report. Or it’s very similar.
@@wxyoung691 Thanks! Just looking at the guys channel just tells me so much. Oof.
Bioware was inclusive before inclusivity was common! Amd its no "woker" than BG3 which is apparently the best game. The algirithm loves all comments, both positive and negative. So say how you feel.
I feel so excited for this game. It looks like a natural progression from inquisition.
@@RandomWandrer yeah. Like the game being "woke" isn't an issue at all. These people are clearly trying to push an agenda.
Same! I am excited to see what will happen with Veilguard. It looks amazing and I can't wait to see it.
The issue is Simple Players: Bioware should make a CRPG like Baldur's Gate 3. Bioware: No and that wasn't our Baldur's Gate that was Larian's Studio Baldur's Gate. Players: We don't understand. There are Different Studios and Larian's Studio only makes CRPG and Bioware makes Action RPG's. What the Players should say is we like Larian's Studio and understand that isn't Bioware. Now I went and lost them on understanding. Simple this Bioware makes Games their way & Larian's Studio Makes Games Their way they are total Different Studios there is Different Styles and yes even when Someone making the Same Game they do it in Different ways.
The baffling thing is that Bioware intended Dragon Age to be a more action orientated game even from Origins and people still complain. Veilguard combat looks better than anything we got from previous Dragon Age titles anyway
Yeah, Bioware and Larian both make RPGs but the way they approach the genre is different. Its like saying that Bioware and Obsidian RPGs are the same. Even though they are very different.
And if people want Bioware to make Larian RPGs that's fine to want. Its at least honest in how it acknowledges that Bioware is making a different kind of RPG.
@@oliwierwagrowski3176 I remember reading comments on DAO and BG1 and 2 fans hated how simplified and action-y it looked. The line for what people consider simple and action-y is different. And for some of those fans DAO was simple and action-y.
@@Knight1029 The thing is Baldur's Gate 1& 2 was CRPG's then Bioware made Dragon Age Origins & went Action RPG but since Baldur's Gate is not own by Bioware or Larian there is no Reason to compare the Games. Even Larian Studio is against how they were ordered around during the BG3 Development by the Owner of the BG series this is why they Turned Down BG4 & said they will never Make another Baldur's Gate Game. So yes Their next Game will get Hated on once they announce it.
@@mattstansbeary3068 I do think there is a reason to compare the games and studios. The reason being just setting the conversation straight. A lot of people think BG3 is like DAO when in reality they are very different. Even BG1 and 2 are very different from BG3.
Also what do you mean by "So yes Their next Game will get Hated on once they announce it." I don't think I understand what you mean.
I’m glad there’s someone like you with rational thought which is what’s sorely needed. The “wokeness” arguments are incredibly tiring to hear. It’s like those folks forgot those are optional and aren’t being forced on them. I play Dragon Age for story and more, but keeping gameplay refreshing and interesting is also important. If the my kept things exactly the same, then yeah, a game will get boring fast. Things have to change up at some point.
BioWare’s layoffs were already painful and past employees actually have been bullied off by fans. Support is sorely needed for games to succeed or even continue. And companies like EA do hurt them in more ways than one, that I can agree on. That’s my grain of salt on the matters.
Also the recent arguments about the god mode. People forget disabled gamers exist (I am one of them but not physically).
Thank you! I try my best to be fair minded about these things. People just don't seem to get what Bioware is and that they have always been "woke".
I think there is something to gameplay consistency but I do see the appeal of a new gameplay style each game.
Oh yeah man. Supporting the developers especially when they are laid off is really important.
Yeah, and Dragon Age wasn't player for it difficulty. This isn't FromSoftware where the difficulty is apart of the story and feeling of the game. Dragon Age has always been about its story, characters and world. Dying fifty times doesn't help that.
Making everyone pansexual for the sake of it is wokie delusion. Stop trying to defend it. It reduces them to a bunch of checklists instead of characters with preferences.
@@Knight1029 It was not always 'woke' but I guess when your worldview is one of intolerance to outside viewpoints, you like cherry picking and pretending exceptions are the majority.
@@Adanu191 what do you mean?
Dragon age 2 had quite great dialogue, Inquisition was acceptable but not great, Andromeda was very bad (it was very childlish, it felt like they were trying to capitalize on the superhero trend), Anthem.... not comment.
For the first time since Origins, it seems like Bioware finally had the time and freedom to make a proper singleplayer game. So far EA always forced them to release games too early or focus on stupid trends they couldn't deliver. First they had to ship DA 2 and ME3 in 2-3 years, then they had to focus the fucking live service model and multiplayer (a singleplayer focused studio making multiplayer live service games, what could posibly go wrong). Now, finally, EA game them the space and freedom they needed to do what they know best, so let's see what they coocked so far.
I don't agree with everything you have said as I think DAI has great dialogue and Andromeda isn't as bad as people say. But I do agree with Anthem. Anthem isn't that great.
But I do agree that DAV is being given the chance to be great. They removed the live service elements and have made it into a single player offline game. And they have removed the open world. It looks like it will shape up well. As you said lets see what they have cooked up so far.
@@Knight1029 Inquisition was a huge step down from previous games, even Varrick was far better in DA2.
Andromeda, well, just watch Game Sins´ video of Andromeda and you will see some really bad dialogue there. And that's besides the rough state of the game. Again, that was probably because the game wasn't developed by Bioware´s main team and the scope was just too great.
Anthem was a complete failure, we all know what happened.
But I'm not a hater, so I'm not going to start shitting on a game that didn't even come out. I still believe the reveal trailer was pretty bad, but the gameplay is nothing like the trash people say it is.
It's simple, just wait, play and then criticize the game.
@@jonanderetxebarria9944 I like DAI well enough. The only issue I had with Varric he didn't look the same. I kinda like Varric looking a bit ugly. It added to his charm.
I have player Andromeda four times. The dialogue isn't that bad. I just don't see it. Now this isn't me saying its perfect. I don't like the change in combat design and the lacking of cinematic dialogue is bad. I just think its better than what most people say it is.
Anthem is definitely the least like Bioware game there is.
I obviously love the gameplay reveal but I do understand people's issues with it.
I respect that. Waiting for the game and judging it before it comes out it a good idea in general to do.
We should, regardless of the game or studio, judge a game for what it is trying to be. Bioware games are always penalized by not being something else, instead of being judged by what they really are. Sad, unfair and infuriating.
Yeah, like if people dislike that Bioware isn't making their kind of RPG then that's fine. Just be honest about it and understand they aren't for you. Judge the game on what it is trying to do.
Nonsense, “judge the game based on what is TRYING to do”? No. Everyone should judge everything based on what it is, not what it’s trying to be, if I try to make a cake but it turns out awful, it’s an awful cake no matter what I’ve tried do do with it.
Anthem was a terrible looter shooter, probably the worst loot system in the genre, inquisition just wasn’t a good action rpg. What is it with you guys blaming people for disliking a product that isn’t even that good in the first place?
@@italianspiderman5012 You clearly did not understand what I said. If you tried to make a cake, and it turn out awful, you should be judged by how good of a cake your cake turned out to be, not by how good of a pasta. That is what I'm saying. People have been bashing The Veilguard (even without it being properly released and available for people to experience) because it is very different than Origins, or worse, different than BG3. They should wait and see for themselves if The Veilguard is a good game by itself, not by any other game metric.
@@italianspiderman5012 but you are already aligned with the idea "judge the game based on what it is trying to do." If you were trying to make a cake it will be judged on how good a cake it is. If it is a bad cake then it will be judged as a bad cake. How is that different from what the OP was saying?
Yeah Anthem failed as a looter shooter. It was trying to be one but failed. Again how is what you saying not the same as what the OP said.
I think Bioware has struck a pretty good balance between player choice and reasonable limitations on those choices to tell a cohesive story. Imo, that's fine. I don't have much else to say but thank you for the video! Keep it up!!
Actually, I'm gonna add, it's weird that diversity is such a problem for some people. It's a fantasy world! It can be whatever, there's no limitations really in that regard, why should it only be white people? This "forced diversity" stuff really got me thinking what it actually means. There are maybe some things out there where the diversity feels very forced, but Dragon Age IS NOT one of them. Heck, I don't think Dragon Age could ever BE one of those "forced diversity" places. The world they built is naturally diverse. We're in a different part of the world than in previous games, of course there's gonna be more differences! The fantasy and sci-fi genres have always been pretty diverse in my experience, maybe not always, but I think it usually is. I think that's cool.
Thank you! I have another video in the works and I hope it will come out somewhat soon.
I agree. Bioware has struck a good balance. It all comes together to make a really good game.
What is also weird is that DAO just has a lot of PoCs. Besides Duncan their is just a lot of random NPCs that are PoCs. Its weird people are so freaked out by it when DAO just has that. The term "forced diversity" is just a dog whistle for "gays and blacks in media". The people who say that often mean that. They just hate those groups and want them out. But they know they can't just say that so they hide behind words like "forced diversity". As you said there are some media that does feel like forced diversity but that is usually just bad writing or being disingenuous. Dragon Age is not disingenuous at all.
But yeah fantasy and sci-fi genres have always been diverse. Because writing in those genres always have you think "What can this world be like?" Which I think is cool to.
Just play Baldurs Gate 3 if you want maximum choice.
I agree. If people want a RPG that is about player freedom then they should play BG3. They shouldn't expect that from Bioware because they aren't trying to make that kind of game.
You seem to be trying to answer a question no one asked. I have never come across anyone that didn't understand that Bioware create mostly heavily story driven RPG's, not sandbox RPG's like Bethesda, the question has always been the degree of freedom provided in the game, a question that has been clouded by the problems the company has had over the last 15 years since EA bought them (some of those problems were very much of their own making).
But that's the thing. People assume Bioware should have a lot of freedom in their games. Which is missing the point of what they are trying to do.
They can do whatever they like. But ultimately gamers are free to like or dislike their games ,can't take away that freedom.
@@ati3473 sure. But I think its fine to ask gamers to understand the games they are playing and who they are for.
Yaaay new video!!!
Yeah! I hope you like it.
@@Knight1029 loving it as always!! It's so nice having someone to voice this perspective on bioware, I think It makes a lot of sense
and to be honest It's a shame more people don't see it that way and even want Bioware to be like Larian when Bioware have it's a unique way of making crpgs, I've played a lot of those, most of what we have at the time, and I think and the closest thing I got to those Bioware vibes was Rouge Trader
and god I wish I could bring more to discussion, but I feel so limited when writing in English :D
Wish you more engagement!
@@milirin thank you! For a long time I have lamented the fact that there was no one who really spoke with this perspective. Everyone seems to think Bioware is something they are not.
I don't mind if people like Larian's style more or want Bioware to be more like them but man some people just don't understand them or value the type of games they make. I love what Bioware does with the RPG genre.
I heard good things about Rouge Trader. I will definitely check it out. I am always on the look for more Bioware like games.
I think your English is pretty good. I understood what you were saying.
Thank you! I appreciate the engagement.
It's funny you should mention CDPR because they just got lambasted recently. Let me describe every title so far: "IS CDPR TAKING THE KNEE TO WOKE WRITERS, IS CDPR BOWING DOWN TO DEI" yeah that. Really proving dead internet theory true more each day. At this point, I'm reserving any and all opinions of Veilguard until the product actually launches. I have concerns, but I'm far more willing to give it a fair chance now as a side-effect of outrage peddlers poisoning the well.
I think that's fair. I respect just waiting for the game to come out and judging it for yourself.
Hope you won't get any type of hate from "gamers™" or something
I don't particular mind. If they comment I will comment back. They usual either give up or the conversation has them devolve into "No, you wrong."
That's exactly how I feel about Guerrilla, and Horizon games are not even an RPGs!
Horizon feels like a Uncharted game (not a one to one just using it to make a point) with RPG mechanics. Their really isn't a lot of times where the narrative aspect of RPGs comes into play. And the mechanical aspect is very minimal.
Origins gameplay was very good for a CRPG at release, and the majority of CRPG's then and now are player for story first. ARPG's are completely different, which is what Veilgaurd looks like. Therefor, it would only make sense that if 50% of the people don't care too much about the combat system and 50% would 100% prefer a modern real-time-with-pause system that implementing that type of combat would have been the correct call. Instead they went with a _"Spider-Man Remastered"_ style of gameplay without the webs or any valid reason in regards to what the fans who do care wanted. It is also my assumption that the reason you can only have a 3 ability _"Loadout"_ in a fricken single-player fantasy rpg is because the team had a similar system already built for the original multiplayer looter-slasher version of the game and did not have the talent to get a decent rtw/p system in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money.
The lack of hyper-attractive women also tells me that they don't care about what their *_straight_* male fans enjoy in games either, but it also kinda sucks for gay chicks too as I know more than a few lesbians and bi women who will *ONLY* date/lay down with 8+ out of 10 women who are borderline swimsuit model attractive. I'm not going to beat that point too much besides saying _"Yep, they are real. I see 4'11"-5'11" women 5 or 6 days a week at the gym who have measurements like 32-36 large "C" breasts, 20-24 inch waists and 34-38 inch hips while weighing between 98 and 135lbs. Are they _"The norm?"_ Of course not, people are fat in general now, but it was the norm 20 years ago, and most women would look like that if they stayed at a healthy *body fat percentage* for their height. It's also a fantasy game, but whatever, Bioware can wait to see how sales turn out knowing that the majority of _"straight"_ guys are not going to be interested in the romance part of their game, which has been a big part of their games for 26 years now. I think it is silly as you can accommodate both audiences pretty darn easily, but instead they'd rather risk EA Motive making the next Mass Effect game? Ridiculous.
And that is where the big difference is. Bioware *used* to try to appeal to everyone possible in their game's genre. Now they are aiming squarely at a subset of a subset and telling the other fans that they are wrong for not liking the direction of the game. _"Give it a chance you bigot."_ Well no. Let me play the game for 20 hours for free and I'll give it a shot. I'm not giving them $60 or $70 bucks to _"Give it a shot."_ I'm one of those people who has been playing since BG1. I also like traditionally _sexy_ women. Romances have always been a big part of Bioware games to me, with the most important part being the writing/story which said relationships are a part of. Next would be gameplay. I prefer strategic problem solving or skill based action with numerous options. This game seems like it is simply not something I am going to like. Divinity OS2, Persona 5, Pillars of Eternity DF, Final Fantasy 16, Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn? I'd be fine with combat in that vein, but this just feels _off_ *to me.*
I hope the game is good, and if people whose tastes align with my own review the game well then I will probably buy it. if not then I won't. Just like I won't buy Horizon Forbidden West or Spider-Man 2 for _"Uglifying"_ characters for no reason after the fact, I'm not buying a Bioware game that intentionally removes or changes things they already know a huge segment of their audience likes. Blackrock, Vangaurd, State Street etc. will get sick of funding this DEI/ESG bullshit at the expense of fans who aren't quite as PC as they would like sooner rather than later (once the governments stop bailing them out with taxpayer money it is a wrap). This is not about _"Woke"_ content. BG3 was chocked full of Indian Dwarves and African American Gnomes yet no one cared. This is about "Woke" at the expense of "Straight". Include branches for both, make gameplay the focus, or get ready for the game to lose a lot of money. In the case of Veilgaurd and what I assume was at least $300M + marketing, I sincerely hope it is a good game. If it isn't objectively appealing to more than just the one demo *_it appears_* they catered to I just can't see them selling the 10M+ copies EA is going to demand for the money they have invested after ME:A and Anthem, the latter of which was an unmitigated disaster.
Most Dragon Age fans don't particular care about what combat style the game has. Because most Dragon Age fans care about the story, characters and world. Which each Dragon Age games has still retained. I would like DAO's combat back because it would add consistency and all the benefits along side it. But the combat they have now isn't bad.
As for why DAV's combat is the way it is, I think you are onto something. But I think the reason is more due to Anthem rather than the game being multiplayer at one point. Because after Anthem Bioware stated that they were using the code base for Anthem. So, whatever quirks or features Anthem had DAV mostly like has it to. Now this isn't a bad thing because reusing tools speeds up development and creates mastery. If they started from scratch again DAV would probably have released in 2026.
I have no idea what you are on about here. I don't think a) the DAV companions are unattractive and b) they don't need to be hyper attractive unless it makes sense for their characters. What I mean is that just having good looking character is meaningless unless their is a reason for them to be like that. Character design isn't just eye candy. Its a tool for story telling. Having a companion with scares tells a story. Or having them look beautiful tells a story. But that is thrown out of the window if they are all just hyper attractive. Like I don't get the desire to just have hyper attractive characters in a story game. If this was just a Call of Duty game then why not. But it isn't.
At the end of the day it is every gamer for themselves. There are those who hated ME3 just for the ending, but was "ride or die" for the game Anthem, just as there are those who not only still bash Diablo 3 today, but played and put more money than a $60-$70 game in Diablo Immortal (This includes streamers/influencers) instead of focusing on the real issues of "always online", microtransactions, battle passes, etc in single player focused games. There are those ok with the free to play model in payed for games. To all these gamers, we are at an impasse. Peace is a lie! Keep buying loot boxes and I'll continue playing 'woke' games that are great.
Yeah man. It sucks that gamers are just so contradictory. Like they aren't a monolith but man it sucks that things aren't clear. Like I remember when everyone hated always online and microtractions but now its just seen as normal and inoffensive.
No, what you DONT understand about people not understanding bioware is that people see the superficiality of the choices provided by BioWare and criticize them for it ONLY (I dont think there are people who dont understand them at all) - why give a choice if you will do what you want anyways? (that is the most common complaint I see, which suggests understanding) You waste your time making it, you waste players time picking it and it makes no difference. (I personally like the choices as they add flavour and you can make the main protagonist have the personality you want.) People simply wanna have results that are totally different and quite frankly, that would make the games impossible to make or have any sort of sequels. good options needs to be heavenly and bad options hellish, if the option is the same thing BUT the difference is that your character may be more emotional or cold for the other choice is just not enough of them.
What I meant by that. I think people ARE understanding BioWare but hate what they are doing and want them to change into something different. Also a lot of the time their choices would result in the plot not being possible (BUT it could be solved with some short game over cutscene with the villain winning like Baldug gate does it - say you kill Solas immediately because you dont trust the guy and then it shows you that without his guidence you couldnt close the portal and everything got overrun - DA Inquisition has actually just this in the mission failure/death screens like "With the Inquisitor out of the picture Corypheus was able to overwhelm the Inquisition forces and Thedas soon followed" and then you have only the option to accept this as your ending or reload a safe. I think if BioWare added some disasterous endings and enabled them to make stupid choices but canonized actually going full length of the game and have those game overs be just as a fun ending, it might be satisfying them a little :)
As for the Woke aspect, I think BW are sexist who make complex female characters and males are usually make as the laugh stock commedy relief like Garrus, Vega etc. Do you think BW comment on EA was genuine or with gun to the head so to speak? I think the answer is clear.
In the video I simply said that Bioware makes RPGs to enhance stories, characters, themes and the world. And since RPGs are about making choices Bioware has those choices be informed by the story, characters or themes. Such as in DAO where a lot of the choices are framed as which option will help with the Blight more. Or how a choice effects the world. Studios like Larian have their choices be informed by what the player wants to do. If they player wants to kill all the tieflings then they will be allowed to do that. Both ways of using an RPG are valid.
What I was talking about in my video is that people think Bioware is trying to make RPGs where player freedom is the priority. When that simply isn't the case. You can dislike them for not being about that but you can't say Bioware is trying to be like that. If you do then you don't understand them.
I don't think I said anywhere in my video that I would be opposed to fail states. I think that would be interesting and show what would happen if the player died or if the villain succeeded. But it has to be done with purpose. Especially considering that Bioware's stories wouldn't work if you could kill everyone whenever. Like if you could kill Loghain that fundamental changes what DAO's story does.
What? How is Garrus or Vega "laugh stock commedy relief"? Is it because Garrus and Vega are funny? Additionally, how is having male characters (not saying Garrus or Vega are "laugh stock commedy relief" nor most male characters in Bioware games are like) be funny somehow sexist? That makes no sense.
I understand Bioware, but my issue is I'm sooo tired of marvel movies, and now these game look like some mash up of marvel, and pixar movies. It just looks like it is made for a 8 year old. maybe I'm just old but this game just looks silly. I played D.A. Inq. and just refuse to eat this slop any more
I have no idea how DAV looks like marvel. I just don't see it. You are going to have to explain what you mean.
👍👍👍
👍
The thing I have learned about Bioware is that it's not the Bioware that used to be my highest regarded studio anymore and I have no reason to be excited about anything they work on any longer. And freedom of customization is definitely not why.
True. The Bioware today are not the devs and team leaders that made the games right until Inquisition for Dragon Age. The present devs and team leaders are a different group and the question is do they understand what the old writers and devs intended for DA? The legacy that's left for the newcomers to uphold. What is the old devs' vision? Look at the first DA, the answers are there.
When the lore keeper of DA resigned, I was worried. When more of the old devs and the writers left and development for DA dragged, it's already bad. Then the VG trailer popped, then the game play, and I know I need not bother any more. The Bioware I know, is gone. They were already gone when Andromeda hit.
Why is Bioware not what it used to be to you?
@@OG21020 I don't know how you can say that when its clear the developers now are veterans. Patrick Weekes, lead writer, was on DAO and ME1. And the implication that the leaders that left didn't pass any knowledge down is absurd. The current developers are made up of people who were taught the lessons of other developers and veterans.
The issues Bioware faced with Anthem and Andromeda were not on them but were on EA.
@@Knight1029 Because I loved their games ever since my childhood, to the point of having considered them my favorite studio from the days of Neverwinter Nights well into the Mass Effects and Dragon Ages. Now they haven't made a single game I even liked since ME3 (by which and Inquisition I had several points of complaint more than usual, but they were still good) and they're only getting worse every release. It's not like I can point to specific people, decisions or events. Maybe EA is to blame but that doesn't change the fact they're putting out nothing but (in my opinion) crap.
@@Arbaaltheundefeated what about DAI onwards don't you like?
When people say "Woke", no one means "Progressive" nothing wrong with being progressive. what they mean by "Woke" is forced DEI, the kind you can feel is just there for the sake of DEI and not the story or world-building. the current state of DEI does more exclusion, the opposite of what they're supposed to do. take the same s3x relations, when they push it too much in their products, it doesn't promote inclusion, it just excludes the majority of their statistically straight players!
Nice video, I never got the hate Bioware got. every game doesn't need to be genre-defining. These types of overreactions of gamers are going to kill franchises and developers in this "no second chance" environment of the gaming industry, Although I admit Bioware has gotten more second chances than any other developer.
Back in the DA:O days, almost no game was able to do what Origins was doing, it became a staple in the genre. nowadays on the other hand, what Origins did is the bare minimum of an RPG, so when people make an RPG even better than Origins, it'll never be prased like Origins because as good as it may be, it doesn't push the genre like Origins did and gamers somehow expect the same feeling with every new DA game as they felt with Origins. It's not fair to expect a developer to push one of the most over-saturated genres every time, just let them make their game, it's either good or bad, there's no point overreacting to it!
Every time I see "woke" or "DEI" being used it is a stand in for progressivism. Because everything they are complaining about seems to not be actually concerned with disingenuous representation. Because if it was then the examples they give of bad representation are just wrong. What DAV is doing is not bad representation nor does it exclude anyone. Just because all the characters are pansexual doesn't exclude straight people. They can still romance the opposite sex if they want. Additionally, sexual orientation was never a big factor in Dragon Age. It wasn't apart of someone's identity. You can say, "What about Dorian?" And my response would be that his story wasn't about his identity being challenged. His dad and mom don't care that he only has sex with men. What they care about is him continuing their bloodline. Dorian's story is more about agency over ones self. Now technically the behind the scenes does reveal Dorian's story is more about identity but it is written in such a way where it makes sense for the world.
Now this isn't me saying bad representation or exclusion doesn't happen. It does. But I don't think its happening with DAV.
I do think those people are setting themselves up for failure expecting each Dragon Age game to be genre defining or something similar. Sometimes just having a good game is enough. And often those genre defining games come from the desire to make a good game. You can't make genre defining games by force. It just happens.
@@Knight1029 That's how you feel and not the real reason, there are of course people always mad about these things for their own stupid intolerances. but the majority of people have legitimate reasons to dislike DEI. and it's not progressivism. if you actually stop that kind of thinking for a second (DEI=progressivism) you'll actually see my reasoning makes sense.
I haven't been following DA drama, but if I'm gonna say what irks me a little about it so far it's the black elf main character they showed off(yes I know it's a custom character but let's face it, we're gonna see them as side characters in the game). now let me explain before calling me intolerant. Elves throughout fantasy have always been well established and never been that color until recent years, we even have dark elves or night elf variants and I don't think anyone would say they are black, they had their own distinct races and Lores. there's no LOGICAL reason they suddenly have that variant other than senseless DEI. even in the real world there are logical explanations and reasons for the existence of various colors and races of humanity. that's what I mean by nonsense DEI. I don't like it because it's lazy not because they're black. Elves always had different names based on their races, if a black Elf makes sense, please, tell me the Lore accurate name of their race? now they might have retconned some things to add this race to the game and at this point, I've gotten used to every new DA game retconning the past games instead of "adding" to the lore(it's not a good way of expanding the world but that's just how BioWare is.)
The same goes with Pan side characters, it robs them of one aspect of their identity. I didn't care for it in StarField and I don't care for it here. Liara being Bi, Dorian being gay, or Solas only dating an Elf F main character, or Sera being gay all make sense with their characters, world-building, and development. it enriches their personalities and the world they live in. EVERY character being Pan makes zero sense, it pulls the player out of the role-playing experience. it's a cop-out move on the developer's side. it's a move to make everyone happy at the cost of the character's dignity.
Making every character Pan is increadibly regressive. a trent I really hope doesn't become common in gaming. think of the amazing moments YOUR main character had with their romantic partners in past games, Tali, Liara, Morrigan, Cassandra, they're all empty and meaningless if they could just swing in every direction with no reason. I just started playing Cyberpunk 2077 a few days ago and last night Panam rejected my female V's attempt because she's only into Male characters and it adds so much to the roleplaying experience.
I have no problems with a character's race or sexual identity as long as it has good reasons and not random DEI. how is random DEI good for roleplaying immersion?!
IF they really want progressive DEI, they could make a kingdom or continent where those races are the majority with their own unique heritage, architecture, costumes, etc. Now if that was the case and I see a black elf in the game, I know where they came from, it would make sense they're in the game. but no, they just want the credit for DEI without putting in the hard work. it's the same as big companies changing their Logos into a rainbow in pride month without doing literally anything that matters to the community.
Identity matters and this type of DEI has no Identity. it inherently can't be progressive without Identity.
They just try to Americanize this world by putting everything in there without their own unique identities and it's gonna end up flat on its face. think about it like this, Black people or people of color in our world all have their own unique identities rooted in their motherland culture but in video games, all the colored people are basically the same as every other character. if you call that progressive, it's just far too shallow. you can't make a generic character and change the skin color and call it progressive, that is the definition of senseless DEI.
@@f.m848 as I said in my reply I can see there being legitimate concerns with forced diversity. Dragon Age Veilguard is not one of them. It isn't disingenuous and it isn't going against established lore.
In DAO there are many dark skinned elves. In the Dalish Elf Origins you can see two dark skinned elves. Here is the link.
static.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonage/images/5/55/Dalish_gathering.png/revision/latest?cb=20150618153242
In the bottom right corner they are there.
In the Zathrian's camp you see Elora who is a dark skinned elf.
And Zervran exists. He is a dark skinned elf.
Since the beginning Dragon Age has always had dark skinned elves. What Davrin being dark skinned is not new and not DEI influence. To claim that having Davrin is going against the lore establish in Dragon Age is an odd thing to say. When it has always been there.
My issue with having everyone be pansexual isn't due to role playing issues but characters feeling less distinct. Everyone has their own preferences. Representing that in game makes the characters feel more real. But making them all pansexual can harm that. Now there are other ways to make them more distinct from one another but that is a layer removed. Why Bioware did this though I don't think is because of DEI or anything like that. Why they did it was to allow players to romance who they want. People didn't like getting rejected by Cassandra as a female Inquisitor and so they just made them all pansexual. On one hand I don't mind that because I like being able to romance them with whatever characters. But on the other hand I feel like it removes a layer of distinction.
Bioware isn't making Dragon Age more "modern". Dragon Age has always had dark skinned characters and characters of all sexualities. I don't see how this is bad DEI.
@@Knight1029 As I said they need to have a reason. anyone can make dark-skinned characters. my point is WHY are they dark-skinned.
I also looked up the image you sent and they're clearly not black(they're literally my own skin color)! they are either tanned or a better explanation would be half-blood(I know they're not) but it actually makes sense to get the darker skin from the human parent! but an elve warden so dark that you can't even see at night! just HOW?! I'm not saying that shouldn't exist, I'm saying give it a reason! make him a little more light-skinned and say he's a half-elf, or retcon the game again and say dark elves from another continent exist. something that makes sense. people didn't come into existence in every color and race, it happened over time and distance. it reminds me of that one completely black Viking in AC Valhalla that never made any sense!
"And Zervran exists. He is a dark-skinned elf." so that's your standard of dark-skinned? come on man! you gonna compare a tanned skin tone to Davrin's? Lol
- in our world, we have evolutionary and geological reasons for it.
- in Warcraft the difference between Highborne and Kaldorei elves is magical, geological, and social.
- in The Elder Scrolls there are over 10 different types and colors and looks for elves and every single one of them has a detailed explanation and lore behind why they are the way they are. you don't see short, or fat, or colored High elves in TES like it's a common thing and there are lore-accurate reasons for it!
You can't press the "randomize skin color" button and say we're done. that's the difference between a cheap world development and a well-realized one.
I don't remember a single dark-skinned elf like Davrin in all 3 DA games so you can't even say it's well-established and lore-accurate!
Yes, they are making DA "modern", every single new DA game has been doing that little by little. you're telling me you didn't notice in Inquisition there's not a single influential male character in the Inquisition or the story in general? it's just Cassandra and Leliana and no one else even comes close to these two not even the main character(not Cullen, let's face it, he's just muscle and not even that). not that I mind it, because of having a female prophet starting their religion, women have more influence and power in matters of faith in this world, and that makes a lot of sense. that's it. that's all I want. if you want to introduce a black elf character after 3 games with not a single black elf, give it a good reason. that's all I'm asking otherwise it's a cheap SBI level of DEI.
I agree about your standing on Pan characters. personally, I don't care much about romance in games anyway. but everyone being Pan is lazy character writing that just cheapens their characters.
Who's your potential Romance option btw? I'm thinking if the Qunari Taash has a cool personality like Karlach in BG3 I'll romance her, otherwise, I'm not interested in any of them until I know their characters.
@@f.m848 my man I don't get how you can't call them dark skin. Where I am from that is dark skin. Additionally, in the real world Obama is considered black even though in other parts of the world he would be called tanned. Also I find the notion, "There needs to be a reason for them being dark skinned" odd. Like that logic extents to "There needs to be a reason for Leliana being bisexual." Which is dumb. Dragon Age doesn't seem to have skin work the same way our world does. The sun doesn't darken skin. So, it seems that some people are just born with different skin colors. That's fine. The issue comes into play when it is done for a modern reason. Dragon Age just has dark skinned characters. They just exist. That's fine.
My romance could be Taash. Though when I play the game itself it might change. I do think all the characters look great though.
Well done sir good video🎉👌🏾
Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed it.
I don't really blame EA. EA wanted Mass Effect 2 just as quickly as Dragon Age 2. The Mass Effect team pushed for 6 more months than the Dragon Age team, though. Mass Effect 2 ended up being a great game, whereas Dragon Age 2 had more issues. I still like or love both games. EA distributed all of the games in both franchises. It's hard to celebrate certain titles made under EA ownership and criticize others due to EA ownership of BioWare. It doesn't work both ways.
I do. EA caused a lot of issues. EA is the one who demanded a DA2 to fill the gaps of Swtor while ME2 started development after ME1. DA2 exists in the way it does because they wanted it out to fill a gap in their quarter. And it wasn't EA who made those games. It was Bioware. ME2 is good because of Bioware, not EA. Also I don't get the implication that DA2 could have just demanded more time when it existed to fill a gap. If they asked for more time that would go against what EA wanted.
EA also owned BioWare when they released 7 of their top 10 best-selling games. You don't have to like EA, but BioWare has sold more games under EA ownership.
@@lumina1104 I still think EA is a problem for Bioware. I recognize that without EA Bioware would have collapsed due to a lack of funding for too many projects in development. But they are still a issue.
Of course videogame will be curated. I mean if Bg3 was DnD game, party would have convinced DM to insert "Descent into Avernus" somewhere in act 3. 😂😂 Thing is about DA2 and 3, they are simply did not scratched that"Epic fantasy" itch that NWN and DAO perfectly did.
Yeah? All video games are curated to some extent. But there is a spectrum. Bioware makes RPGs that are very curated with a fair bit of freedom. But when compared to BG3 they seem like linear narratives.
I think DA2 and DAI are pretty cool games. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
@@Knight1029 Modern games in general give less freedom. Its not just Bioware, giving less and less freedom with each generation basically. You cant kill NPC, like you were able in BG 1,2 and NWN. Same with Bethesda, you cant pull stuff in FO4 and SF, that you were able in Daggerfall and Morrowind. I would say company from US in general give less and less freedom, and provide more curated experience. While companies fro EU and JP still release games where we can kill everyone and go full murderhobo, when it comes to RPGs
And I absolutely hated DA2, and DAI was just boring. For me it was more boring than Starfield xD
@@Sithishe if you don't like how RPGs of today are then that's fine. I don't think asking Bioware to be something they aren't is good. Why would I ask Larian to be like Bioware? That would be dumb.
I like DA2 and DAI.
@@Knight1029 I think people are asking Bioware to be what it uses to, in Kotor days, etc. And yeah I specifically dont like modern US rpgs. I absolutely love modern RPGs that comes from EU and JP. My favourite part of JP rpgs is when they use old shakespeare English for older races, like elves, dragons, etc. really gives that medieval vibe.
@@Sithishe so Bioware should do what they did with Kotor which was have a curated protagonist, restrict who the player can kill and have conflicts resolve in the way they want? Kotor had you playing as Revan a character who existed prior to the player having loads of establish backstory that the player can't influence. Kotor didn't allow the player to kill anyone they wanted. Example you couldn't even attempt to kill the Jedi. Sure it would have failed but isn't it good for RPGs to allow the player to do something even if it doesn't work? Kotor had conflicts resolve in the way Bioware wanted and not the player. Couldn't the player just have killed or force persuade the Republic guard on Manaan to get to the Star Forge Map? Sure but Kotor wanted the game to play out its way. You can say those are bad things but I would say that is just what Bioware has always done and tried to do. They aren't making RPGs where player freedom is the most important thing.
That's fine if you don't like modern RPGs. But why are you asking Bioware to change who they are? I wouldn't ask FromSoftware to change who they are. Their games aren't for me. So, I am not gonna ask them to appeal to me.
Fine, they are "misunderstood".. Fortunately there are better developers to buy from that we do understand.
I mean if Bioware isn't making the RPGs you want that's fine. They are doing something else. I am glad their are developers that cater to what you want. Having more, different, types of RPGs is better.
Seems like you feel into a trap of thinking about BioWare as an entity, it’s not, it’s a studio with people working in it, and these people make games.
Modern BioWare has absolutely nothing to do with the team that made ME or dragon age, it’s BioWare only by name.
Do you not think that people join a studio to make the the type of games they produce? People joined Bioware because of the type of RPGs they make. And Bioware has continued to make their type of RPG.
Veilguard doesn't feel like Dragon Age anymore because of the comic look, Solas looks so ugly.
Instagram filter made it to Thedas.
The demons.. a disco - fever dream
Only two companions instead of three.
The rest is totally fine, I want to romance the elven Warden and Neve if BioWare stops using Instagram filters, every characters face is way too smooth and flawless.
I just don't get you. The game doesn't look bad and it does look like Dragon Age. Sure it doesn't look exactly like the other games but it still resembles it.
I think the game will turn out fine.
THIS IS ALL A MOO POINT, people dont really know what RPGs are, that is why DIABLO still goes on after all these years, you made it out to be that the majority of people are RPG elites. bioware's mass effect and dragon ages are like the witcher games, whiles compering them to bethesda is just one big mistakes, bethesda is lazy, all their features are stagnated, protagonist not having VO are relegated to indie, budgeted, double A games only, because you need to welcome the normies is what is the most important, you cant say you are making a AAA game and what it launch is just any of the shadow run games
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Could you clarify?
BioWare is not misunderstood.
The audience is expecting more Mass Effect-like games, which is what they are known for. And what they build.
A marginal amount of people may interject into the discourse surrounding BioWare with baseless expectations of infinite freedom and character expression, but they are not the kind of people to inform themselves on the reality of BioWare titles via a youtube video.
What people expect from BioWare is : more of what they have produced in the past. There is no significant or widespread misunderstanding and the studio is very far from being the most misunderstood.
The only mistake is paying attention to this discourse. Look where it is witnessed (Reddit, X...) and see it for what it is : a natural consequence of an unhealthy platform profiting from unending discourse, facts or reality not being needed.
I have seen plenty of people misunderstanding what Bioware is and what their games are about. Look at the constant comparisons between BG3 and DAO. Those games are similar only on the surface. Yet everyone thinks that BG3 is somehow a spiritual successor or inspired by the game deeply. BG3 is a game where the player has a lot of freedom on what they can do and what character they can make. DAO is not that. Yet people can't help but think they are similar to their core.
A lot of people misunderstand Bioware. It is evident through the BG3 and DAO discourse and through other conversations. Even DAO fans misunderstand that the game gave you a lot of freedom. When in reality it just didn't.
The problem is Biowares current hiring practice and which voice actors that are being employed. Americans that think USA problems qnd social ilks are the only thing that matters. It's clearly American racism against the entire world. Americans think their issues are the only valid issues and are the only issues in the world.
What? I am sorry could you explain again?
I'm still missing something that picks me up as a fan. So far I've only heard about romances and genders, about a no-die mode and hairstyles. Where is my tactical combat system, my blood magic, my nightmare mode and how it has evolved. Don't get me wrong, the other one picks me up too and I'm looking forward to it. But it's not really anything new, Dragon Age has always been diverse and open and that's a good thing. It feels a bit like they listened a lot to the fans who played Dragon Age mainly for easy and romance, but Dragon Age is more than that... I'm still waiting for them to show me the other one, I hope.
I think DAV is gonna be for a lot of fans, mainly the one who engage with story, lore and characters, but not for the fans who liked the mechanics. Which, don't get me wrong, does suck in a way. It is something Bioware could have continued but didn't. There is a lot of lost potential.
@@Knight1029 I agree...
@@AkiraKirisaki same!
they clearly are trying to not make a good game.
I don't know I think they are.
this is mostly just rambling with not much of a point
Could you explain why you say that?
@@Knight1029 Well I'm not that passionate about the topic but you keep saying that the critics are wrong... "but not really" or you misinterpret what the critics say like with the original developers being gone. Of course not all of them are gone, they mainly say it when referring to the people who worked on Mass Effect.
@@nihlus9589 what? When did I say any of that? What I said was that the people criticizing Bioware are measuring them against standards they aren't trying to achieve. They assume Bioware is making an RPG where player freedom is the goal. When in reality that isn't the case. Is it true that Bioware games fail at giving the most amount of player freedom? Yes, but that is like saying Doom fails as a visual novel game. Is that true? Yes, but that is missing the point of Doom. Likewise that is missing the point of Bioware.
Maybe that’s why games like BG3 have been so successful, while dragon age hasn’t been as successful since origins.
What? Dragon Age has been successful financial and critical after DAO? You do realize that DAO lost game of the year in 2009? Whereas DAI won it's year? If you don't like how Bioware makes RPGs that's fine. Just be honest about it.
@@Knight1029 Being game of the year does not make a game good. Any gamer knows that, man.
@@Adanu191 So Why Baldur Gate 3 won don't matters ? Or RDR ? Or GTA V ?
@@MrApoorvaSingh753 Because games are subjective for everyone, and what some random critic on the internet tells me is their game of the year means nothing.
@@Adanu191 Pretty sure that argument can be make to every game around I can say I hate FromSoftwares games because it's too hard and not good story mode and it comes across dumb to others.
This is some seriously deluded 'analysis'. Lol.
Deludedly good you mean!?
dislike bioware way going too poltical prefer keep it fentesy focus on story not add thos ting just keep male famle defeult
How is Bioware going way too political?
@@Knight1029 want sey it but afraid you tube rule wont sey it but sort story this some time trow our face thet some of use dont want our game mean ofc ever free choice sould be option turn it off
If u get wat i mean
@@slagwerk111 what? I am sorry I don't get what you mean. Are you trying to say that there are some things you don't want in your game? If so what is it?
Also you can say what you want. I will check behind the scenes of my "Held for Review" tab to see if UA-cam hide your comment. And then allow it to go through.
4:03 C'mon man, thats a weak ass argument in the defense of pre-established characters, and its not what old school bioware/black isle fans are complaining about. In about two minutes you laid out the entirety of several games' protags pre established identity. That should have told you something, and that something is BW/BL was responsible for the barest of bones and it was up to the player to flesh out the protag as they saw fit. Thats how you build a connection with a player, thats how you keep your games played 20+ years into the future.
You think _anyone_ is going to be playing the new Dragon Age, or the new Saint's Row, Fallout 76, etc even five years from now?
I'm going to play new dragon age at least 10 times just like with all three previous entries hehehe
What? I imagine old school Bioware/Black Isle fans would understand that they never had control on who their character could be. Establishing the identity of the protagonist isn't just some small thing. It changes how a game's story, characters and themes operate. If the protagonist is a blank slate a different story has to be made to accommodate them. Additionally, I think those old fans would recognize that Bioware is still allowing the player to flesh out the protagonist as they see fit. Bioware gives pre-established backstories and sometimes personalities but lets the player choice how to operate them. That is still true to this day. The only new Bioware game that isn't like that is Anthem.
Yeah? I think people will be playing the new Dragon Age game for many years. Like they have with every Dragon Age game.
@@Knight1029 You're being needlessly pedantic about the 'proper' definition of pre-defined characters, but I'd expect nothing less from someone delusional enough to enjoy the slop that gets passed for video games the past decade and believes they'll be classics enough to warrant future installments on _their_ merits alone.
@@dokdirge I have no idea what is the issue with what I said. Could you explain what was wrong with my comment?
>Diversity mentioned in first two minutes
Yeah, I think I'm outta here. Not getting much better than this
bruh
What? What's the issue?
RPGs where the main character isn't voiced, doesn't have an established background, leaving you the player to make up one; I know many RPGamers love this. But it doesn't work, whatever you make up in your head your character is, doesn't always fit within the what video game itself allows. It's literally impossible to account for that, which for me is very immersion breaking.
I'd rather a custom main character that you choose 1 of many backgrounds to shape their own narrative within the game's world. Yes it's limited, but there are clear rulings and guidelines how they fit in as a whole. Mass Effect does exactly this and it worked very well for the trilogy.
I completely agree. I do think a blank slate protagonist can work but they will never have the immersion or story support that a curated voiced protagonist will have.
The game will be able to actually use the protagonist more effectively. Which is what I love so much about Bioware games.
My problem with Dragon Age is the gameplay, they made one of the best RPGs into an action rpg consolified mass market slop.
I can see that. I don't particular love DAO's combat but I think their is value in having a consistent combat style throughout the main line games.