Kotaku is floating the rumor, anyway.

I have to admit if they're not going to go back to Origins' style of team-based tactics then yeah, sure, might as well make it an open world action RPG. I like those... a lot, actually.

Also I really like Bioware's comments on exploration. I do think that became sorely lacking as the Dragon Age and Mass Effect sequels and expansions went on.

wrong link

Fixed. You'd think I would have noticed that.

Secretly I was reemphasizing to my girlfriend which USB stick I need when I get home.

No, it's the right link

When I clicked it, I expected to get shit

What I got was something actually good

2.0 and only 16 Gb... meh, not impressed :))

Edit: Anyway, on topic, I would not mind another open world RPG if done right. The linearity of Bioware games, especially lately, bothers me a bit.

Not a chance, the big difference is that Bethesda is self-funded while Bioware is funded by EA. Bethesda can afford to take 2+ years making an open-world game, and even then they still put out buggy messes. But if Bioware tried to make an open-world game (instead of their usual linear hub games) then EA would force Bio to push it out the door after 12 months to give themselves a revenue boost in that fiscal quarter.

DAO was in development for over five years, and still didn't manage to live up Baldur's Gate 2, yet if you believe the new Bioware management DA3 is going to be better than Origins AND be made in 12 months. Can't wait for this to crash and burn

Haha, I only need it to get my shit off her laptop, which I took for Georgia. DA3 is announced for late 2013 which is almost 3 years after DA2. That could still be a tight schedule for an open world game, but I don't know where you get 12 months. They have confirmed DA3 was started before DA2 even came out too, so it's not like half that time was wasted.

I would guess you are partially right though, if they do go more toward Skyrim I bet they will do several large hubs rather than one massive world. Simply because it's easier to test and easier to make and they're not experienced open world developers.

"I McGuffin'd your McGuffin and found your McGuffin."

That is good news, actually. I prefer the open sandbox RPG's more then the linear ones. It seems natural then to re-address combat and core mechanic also to fit in. I am hoping for a little more colourful version of Skyrim now. The world in itself should lend itself nicely to this.

For me it was the other way around. I liked that DA 2 finally broke with the same old RPG mechanics and actually pushed forward an interesting and engaging story and not the same old stuff we've been playing for fifteen years.

Imo, Skyrim is the best example of a RPG where my choices didn't matter. "Hey, I just ended a civil war!" "Who cares?", nothing changed in game progression.

But that is what you get nowadays, if you want to change something.

hm, but this has more to do with lazy design then game mechanics. There is no reason to not try tom implement more reactions to users actions in an open world, extend the lessons from Fallout 3, where your actions end up destroying a town or not, for example. It does require more asset management, but I would like to see someone give it a real shoot.

Open world RPG, with real consequences - that is one dream game.

I don't see it happening, because the work is way to big. With linear storytelling (think The Witcher) you can guide the player on "narrative roads". With open world there are way to many eventualities to think of. Not to mention that a bad implementation is killing immersion faster than no implementation. Eg. it bothered me in Skyrim a lot more than in Morrowind.

The only game I can think of that did both properly was Alpha Protocol. Which was rather short and received a lot of criticism for, surprise, bugs caused by the non-linearity.

I still haven't played DAO or DA2.

After Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 i hope they dont produce an rpg with the open world they mentioned but rpg lite to the point its a fps with rpg elements in an open world.