Justinian said:
What do people find so hard to understand?
The game has a breadth and depth greater than any other modern RPG and people don't understand why the graphics are toned down?
This is not a game like Mass Effect which was 15 hours long and doesn't feature nearly the choices and amount of side quests as DA, which by all accounts is probably 3 times the size or more.
Seriously if the graphics in this game were comparable to Mass Effect I would be worried about the quality and quantity of content being lacking. What would you rather have in an RPG? Graphics or content? I'm certain you can't have both.
Oh and btw this game was well into development in 2004 when it was announced.
Fallout 3 is a ridiculously large RPG all things considered and at least it has
decent visuals.
It would be one thing if Dragon Age had an impressive number of characters onscreen, or didn't have framedrops evident in videos. But as of now it just looks mediocre technically, with small numbers of enemies/ allies onscreen and meh models/textures.
HK-47 said:
Animation matters more to me than technical graphics. If it looked like Bloodlines but also animated like it, I'd be much happier.
Animations are so important. Far Cry 2 usually has better models and textures than COD4, for example, but COD4 has so much better animations that it looks way more photo realistic than the former.
Animations were the best part of Mass Effect to me. The character models wouldn't have been nearly as impressive if they animated as clunkily as they do in games like Fallout 3.