Maybe having a race with just one culture makes it different from humanity in itself. But it should be background-driven, not default.

Portraying an entire species as unison culture (or race) is indeed ridiculous. Portraying a seperate race as a cultural entity is not. Having seperate cultural spheres and nations within each species (Drow & Ar'Tel'Quessir, Sin'Dorei/Quel'Dorei & Kaldorei, Luchiurp & Khazad, etc) is great, though.

The thing is that elves being "in tune with nature" & pointy-eared, humans being short-lived, dwarves being short, heavy built and inventive, as well as the orcs being stupid mongrels are racial (special) characteristics rather than cultural. No matter how what race of any of those species you portray, no matter the culture, some things are constant - leading to some people portraying them as that being all they are.

Edit: A personal favourite of mine on how to shake this up a bit is the Eberron drow. Scorpion-god-worshipping tribal jungle-elves and heirs to a "fallen" (of course not according to themselves) empire. Still distinctly elves, but also distinctly their own race and culture within their elven species.

Have you not heard of Dragon Age: Origins?

Yeah, that sounds so much like Baldur's Gate...

It was the 'secret project' listed on Bioware's site when I was active in NWN persistent worlds.  I've followed it off and on for a while now (seems like about 5 years?) to see where it stood - and it was stuck in "looking for publisher" status for a couple of years.  Yes, I've heard of it!  I also was a bit peeved they pushed the March '09 release back to Q4 '09 recently -  so they could publish the PC version simultaneously with the console versions.  My hope for DA was always that it would provide improvements (over NWN) for custom content builders and more robust and functional tech for multiplayer persistent worlds.  Mostly for those reasons, I see it as the spiritual successor to NWN (moreso than NWN2).  But I also see the ties between BG and NWN, so comparing DA with BG is probably just as appropriate.

"Nothing will change now that we are a part of EA" was such utter and complete bolloks.

I like games that are as open ended as possible.  Freelancer is a good example of this as you could go where you wanted between missions and could keep playing after you completed the main storyline(with a cool campaign only ship near the end as well).

I think the game should have both magic and technology.  It could focus on a conflict between them or combine them for a very powerful result.  At very high levels Clarke's law could come into effect.

It might be interesting to have the world age as you play.  This would require a reason for character living so long, one of the early quests could make it so the characters never age as gift or a curse.  Players would start in a traditional fantasy land with powerful magic and overtime technology could be introduced(possibly based on decisions by the player).  Having a longer 'life' would also help characters gain control of towns or even entire countires.

For magic, I would like to be able to customize spells.  An example would be increasing the cost of casting for more damage, range or area of effect.  On the other hand, a spell could be weakened to allow casting more often.

I've no idea if it's related to the deal with EA, but I do have to say I was looking to DA as being a return to more open-ended PC RPGing.

I enjoyed KotOR, and have started playing Mass Effect, and think I might like Jade Empire.  But they are all so closed and linear it prevents real open-ended sand-box play, and so for me these games are only good for 1 or 2 replays before I move on.  It severely reduces the value of the game, as compared with the replay-ability of multi-player NWN persistent words.  I am concerned that between now and release, DA will somehow develop towards console play-style and direction.  That would be a real let-down because there's nothing I'm aware that's on this year's gaming menu that would appease my particular play-style preference for an FRPG.  My next real sandbox game looks like X3:Terran Conflict (once they release the no-DRM version...hopefully later this year), but that's Sci-Fi (and more 4X than RPG).

Dear Stardock,

Forget about past published rpg games. No need to invent the wheel again but neither copy it. I get bored by most of the newest rpgs because all of them feel the same and seem more of a grind feast than anything else (not that I don't like grind feasts... withtin reason). Give me a complex story; deep background that makes me feel like a small part of something really big, make it feel as real as possible and alive; a game that really makes me question myself and what I believe; a game where i'm forced to choose and to face the consecuences of those actions, and when sometimes the evil choice is the only choice for good; interesting NPCs that truly make me feel some kind of connection with them; no need for epic story of "save the cheerle..." err... "save the world" or "kill evil god", a story of two rival merchant cities fighting over a patch of land can be quite epic and allow more paths to victory like an all diplomacy approach to solve quests; i wouldn't mind a world with only humans as sentient beings... which better monster than the scariest of all?

I would like to fall in love with an rpg again. Also, graphics like Elemental's would be neat. But many people would kill me if you were to follow my suggestion.

I would love a SciFi RPG for a change. Turn based, please.

The simultanious release on PC/console was NOT the only reason for the delay. Many BioWare devs have stated that the game was simply not done yet and they needed more time to make it a great title.

I don't usually spout unsupported rumour.  The announcement was made by EA during their investor teleconference, and reported by numerous independent sources (not 'Bioware devs' lol), including Gaming Target's Feb 4 news blurb:

EA did not give a reason for the delay, but they did say the new release date will give the game "a better launch window."

To me, that sounds like a reason was given.  Better launch window does not mean "finish the game".  It means, they think they can maximize their exposure and sales during the new holiday season time frame when the other platforms are slated for launch.

Other sources reported even earlier that it was specifically to coincide with the launch window of other non-PC platforms.  Check Gamasutra's report from Feb 3 (and notice that the further back we go in time the more clear a response we get from EA):

At the same time, BioWare's Dragon Age: Origins on PC is moved into the second half of 2009, to coincide more closely with the console release during that same period.

IGN reports EA's own response in an article published Feb 9:

EA, which owns BioWare, said that the delay allows it to create one concentrated marketing push for the game, rather than having a staggered release spread over a year.

However, these past few days, their tune changes and we see evasive and non-committal responses to direct questions, such as those posed on Feb 12 with MTV Multiplayer:

MTV Multiplayer: Before EA’s decision was made to release all versions of “Dragon Age” closer together, was BioWare on track to release in early 2009, as previously announced?

BioWare: The PC version of “Dragon Age: Origins” is shaping up quite well, but the recent decision was made to ensure we deliver the quality kind of launch you’d expect from our games.

It was a yes/no question.  And notice that the answer doesn't lead to either conclusion.  I call the responses lies.  Someone more biased, or at least more forgiving, than I might call it PR damage control.  Same difference.  Also, please note that they didn't say "quality kind of game", they say, "quality kind of launch".  lol.  I don't give a rat's ass about a quality launch.  I don't do marketing, branding or PR for Bioware or EA.  I just wanted to play the game.  But the potential exposure bang per marketing dollar spent when launching for all platforms simultaneously is greater - so the PC game launch got sacrificed.

They did try to cover up a bit and say that development would continue during the interim in other interviews.  Duh.  But let's be honest: if they said anything other than that, the message would be "Yes, in fact the game is done for PC, and we're going to delay it.  And sit on our asses while we ignore the PC gaming market in favor of consoles, both in terms of actual gameplay and in terms of development life cycle."  I don't think that would have gone over too well either.

My suggestion is that you don't drink the kool-aid from the 'many Bioware devs' you referrred to.  They're biased.  They saw the response from fans on their own forums about EA's announcement.  They're now (two weeks too late) trying to do damage control.

[edited to fix typos/grammar. Removed superfluous paragraphs.  Remove (most) unsupported opinion.]