The upside is that we keep getting good stuff like Drakensang, Risen, Divinity 2, Eschalon, Avernum, and so on … and they sell well enough that we get more.

I agree with the comments hoping for less pointless stretches of combat and a more open world. (I'm in the Risen/Gothic/Divinity 2 camp, not Oblivion/Morrowind). Those are the two things that made me lose interest in DA (for now). The story is interesting enough to me and the NPC interaction is excellent. And I like the camp setup. But the chopped up disjointed areas that mostly served as backdrops for constant epic battles grew tiresome.

To each their own i guess. To me small areas stitched together on a larger map approach of the Bioware games actually feels a lot more natural than "wide open" later day bethesda style clusterfuck, that could not realistically sustain any form of life if you just think about it for a second.

Here's a fun/funny fact.

After finishing DA, I finally got the gumption to play NWN 2. And by god, the environments look better than DA (and are more taxing for my machine)!!! :)

Not that I really care that much. But I do prefer DnD 3.5 over the watered down DA character system.

I agree with Arhu, DA 2 needs more atmosphere. DA was a bit… sterile, even with the blood spattering (just silly looking) and the cyber sex scenes. ;)

o_o NWN2 is less taxing to your computer?? It sure wasnt for me. And the camera setting in NWN2… *shudders*

I still think DAO is much better game than NWN2

I thought he said that NWN2 as MORE taxing, which I would believe … NWN2 was a total pig.

The Aurora Engine is a system hog, that's for sure. Even The Witcher, which used a modified version, was a real beast.

I don't agree that NWN2 looks "better" than DA though.

Not sure about that . . . it's easier to knock out a diablo clone arpg, no story, no voice acting, limited and endlessly re-used areas, no massive branching dialogue trees etc.

It's probably very, very difficult and expensive to make a diablo clone that's as flawlessly balanced as a Blizzard effort, but it's easier to have a go at a diablo copy than to have a go at a dragon age copy.

No, you misread, I said NWN 2 is more taxing than DA. The environments look better in some cases, too. Trees, lighting, etc…

I must also say that I didn't feel DA was exactly the step up from NWN2 I had expected in terms of gravity. Its strength is no doubt in the characters and animations, which are lightyears ahead of NWN2. But in terms of the areas themselves, I feel many of the DA ones are quite flat. With day and night cycles, plants and trees that have a small movement to them, I think NWN2 areas in general feel a bit more alive and "vibrant".

Though, just as with NWN2, the area design quality in DA will only go up. NWN2 OC wasn't anything spectacular, while MotB and SoZ had some amazing areas (far better looking than DAs, even with its longer drawdistance and larger scaled areas). Or just look at the recently released Misery Stone mod (set in Ravenloft), amazing areas. As clunky as it can be, the NWN2 engine has had time to settle and people have learned how to really make great looking areas in it. I suspect the same will happen in DA if the interest in it doesn't dwindle.

EDIT: Also, to stay somewhat on-topic, I really don't care much for any visual improvements in terms of the technical design. DA looks fine enough and is functional. I hope they can improve their art design a lot though as DA wasn't very interesting in that area. A good sign is how much more interesting and varied ME2 looks when compared to the rather stale ME1.

Does the article talk of xbox or pc graphics? The xbox ones were clearly awful atleast in few of the pics I saw. I didnt mind the pc ones. I thought they were mostly okay.

Here's a good article that compares the visual quality of all 3 versions.

http://games.gamepressure.com/news.asp?ID=111791

Thanks for that … in general they all look pretty similar, but the X360 looks sort-of washed out, the PS3 slightly more detailed and the PC superior in all shots … especially with details such as Nan's neckpiece.

The PS3 version is obviously superior to the Xbox visually, but the general opinion is that the Xbox version has smoother framerates. Of course you get the best of both worlds with the PC version.

Does anyone asking for a more open world etc. over graphical fidelity actually think that Bioware would have made a more open world if they had had additional resources to throw at it?

I don't think that's the case - I think they met their design targets in that respect and didn't have to compromise due to resources. So utilising resources to increase graphical fidelity might not have any effect on world openness etc. which, in my opinion, is more a consequence of Bioware preferring story-driven games.