190 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

As I keep pointing out, Dragon Age is both a CRPG, and a tabletop game. However, it's one of the rare cases where the tabletop is a spinoff of the computer game, and NOT the other way around. Green Ronin has been given the license to do the PnP game.

 

http://greenronin.com/dragon_age/

 

Two things I would note. They have to be careful about dumping too many rules & mechanics, because I think the tabletop and CRPG systems can't diverge from each other too much. They did definitely seek to streamline additionally in DA2, though. 

 

The other is that, personally, were I still tabletop gaming, I wouldn't play Dragon Age as a tabletop game. IMHO, for whatever reasons they've decided to streamline from day one in DAO, to make it a more "accessible" CRPG, makes it work less well as a tabletop game, which do tend to be stat and mechanics heavy. (Though there are a few recent games that try to eschew that traditional approach, I will admit.)

 

Green Ronin also did something silly that few fans understand. The first set of rules only covered levels 1-5. Then they did another set for 6-10. And finally for 11-20. That seems kind of odd and awkward. 

 

BTW, there was a day when I played CRPGs only for the gameplay. That was up until Fallout came out. Now I play them for both gameplay and story, and I kind of like to see both done well. It's never been an either/or thing for me; I want to enjoy both. (I guess that's why I've been nattering about both the dialogue and combat systems.) Also, fiddling with the "geeky" parts of the gameplay never really make me feel like I'm losing my connection with the story/RP aspects, but then, again, that's me, because to me this has always been part of RPGing: one half is rolling dice and looking at tables and arguing with your DM about outcomes, the other half is seeing if your parley with the fire giants will let you move through their lands unharmed, or not. 

 

Dragon Age is neither a CRPG (a term I hate as much as JRPG) or a tabletop game. It is simply an RPG video game, so the mechanics and what you make of it are the whim of the developer, how crunchy they are or not is determined by them really, like any other system. Origins was very much a mimic to what a tabletop would be like by having invisible dice determine damage and penalties and what not, but other than that it was at best, a poor imitation. Dragon Age II was less of a mimic and more of its own style, although it had some kinks that needed to be ironed out and some talent trees that needed to be fattened to make it a bit more robust. 

 

As for the Dragon Age tabletop game, it's better than Pathfinder if you ask me. I enjoy the smaller structure of the design, the use of 3d6 plus modifiers, the dragon die bit being a wildcard factor, and the number of options and storytelling decisions you can actually make, something that is grossly missing in games like Pathfinder and DnD as of late. It was not even stat heavy, I love the fact that you can be a semi-effective fighter without huge bonuses if you played the game.

[Mirrman70]

If I want to play a game where I have to think and measure all my moves, all my items and overall put effort into strategy I want it to be turn based, table top, or just play an actual strategy game. I do all of these things. I play Bioware games because they are fun without much effort involved and they have great story. I regularly play tabletop war games with some friends of mine and I enjoy that because it can sometime take us several days to finish a game. but Dragon Age has not been complex from the start and throwing in complexity for the minority of players out there that want it isn't a good marketing decision due to the majority of money from game sales coming from "casual" type gamers.

[CybAnt1]

Dragon Age is neither a CRPG (a term I hate as much as JRPG) or a tabletop game. It is simply an RPG video game, so the mechanics and what you make of it are the whim of the developer, how crunchy they are or not is determined by them really, like any other system. Origins was very much a mimic to what a tabletop would be like by having invisible dice determine damage and penalties and what not, but other than that it was at best, a poor imitation. Dragon Age II was less of a mimic and more of its own style, although it had some kinks that needed to be ironed out and some talent trees that needed to be fattened to make it a bit more robust. 

 

As for the Dragon Age tabletop game, it's better than Pathfinder if you ask me. I enjoy the smaller structure of the design, the use of 3d6 plus modifiers, the dragon die bit being a wildcard factor, and the number of options and storytelling decisions you can actually make, something that is grossly missing in games like Pathfinder and DnD as of late. It was not even stat heavy, I love the fact that you can be a semi-effective fighter without huge bonuses if you played the game.

 

Your point is taken, Links, although again, I suspect, they can't make the two games that different, otherwise I suspect people who switch to playing tabletop Dragon Age from the "video game" version will have major "WTF" moments. I also suspect licensing agreements with Green Ronin also prevent them from making major divergence, either. Green Ronin can't be too happy if Dragon Age (the video game) becomes too different from Dragon Age (on the tabletop.) Otherwise people will not understand the 'disconnect'. 

 

From what I can see - and again, no I've never played - one big appeal of the DA tabletop game is the option to PLAY Alistair, Isabela, Shale, and other fan-favorites AS your PC rather than just encountering them or taking them along as companions. 

 

As for terminology, well, who knows. We all seem to have our views. Mine is that whatever you want to call it, a "video game RPG" is an attempt to replicate or instantiate the tabletop RPG experience in a video game, bearing in mind the provisos that a lot of aspects of the tabletop experience can be more or less difficult to translate. There's no human DM to tell "I want to tell the fire giants they are a bunch of douchebags" who will then turn around and tell you why the fire giants are now squashing you like a bug. Although they did try with NWN, including the option for one person to actually DM NWN modules while several others played, even giving the DM tools to make things happen in the game world while players were in it. 

 

From my personal POV, there's nothing wrong with making gear head stuff like the combat log invisible to most players, but letting those who want to see it, see it; doesn't seem like that would double beta testing that heavily. It is a true advantage of vRPGs that they can make a lot of the crunchy-numbers stuff disappear into the background ... I concur ... it's just that some folks might actually want to see it. 

 

Anyway, I love these discussions, I can see you would not be happy among us Grognards, the good news, I think, is that Bioware still has some of the definition I just wrote above in mind, as they shape DAI. Even if they are definitely and overtly describing it as an action RPG on the main Inquisition page.

[CybAnt1]

If I want to play a game where I have to think and measure all my moves, all my items and overall put effort into strategy I want it to be turn based, table top, or just play an actual strategy game. I do all of these things. 

 

That's cool. You're you and I'm me. Different players with different tastes and opinions. 

 

You don't want to have to do that in a video game, I do want to be able to do it. 

 

See how that works? 

 

EDIT: BTW, I am absolutely in favor of trimming needless complexity, you may or may not have noticed there are places where I support it. You may have noted I can't see much point to putting a food-and-drink/hunger-thirst system into the game. The only question is where I think some complexity could still be functional. Obviously, me and other players differ on specific issues, most notably WRT the dialogue and combat systems. 

[Mirrman70]

That's cool. You're you and I'm me. Different players with different tastes and opinions. 

 

You don't want to have to do that in a video game, I do want to be able to do it. 

 

See how that works? 

 

EDIT: BTW, I am absolutely in favor of trimming needless complexity, you may or may not have noticed there are places where I support it. You may have noted I can't see much point to putting a food-and-drink/hunger-thirst system into the game. The only question is where I think some complexity could still be functional. Obviously, me and other players differ on specific issues, most notably WRT the dialogue and combat systems. 

but you see how suddenly changing the games overall feel to accomodate you will result in me starting to push for it to return back to the way it was. this results in bioware struggling to appease both and end up angering both due to it not living up to eithers expectations.  If they were to make a standalone game of its own series that had a more complex rule set than I would be fine with that, I would play it. However they already dumbed down the gameplay in DA2 so I believe they are trying to bring it back more to DAO. I think Bioware just needs to make a few smaller games that stick more closely to traditional RPGs so ast to make that group happy but at the sametime keep making AAA games so as to make EA happy and have those be their focus since those will probably be the better selling games.

[CybAnt1]

DAI, I think, will be the determining factor of people deciding where they want to take the series. 

 

BTW, based on what I've read, they seem to be trying to please you AND please me, and I mean this in all honesty, I hope they succeed. Could be one of the reasons they needed an extra year of development. They seem to be trying to find the sweet spot in gameplay between DAO and DA2, which means keeping some of DAO's core audience, while keeping some of DA2's new players happy. 

 

I would also concur they've really screwed up if they end up pissing BOTH of us off!

 

Oh and Links, we definitely agree on one thing, keep those ability trees growing richer and deeper. We love that, especially in the specs, it almost makes up for the lack of class diversity. 

[Lebanese Dude]

Er... You weren't pigeon holed into picking only two stats per class in DA2. Of course you had a primary attribute per class, and a secondary stat generally needed for gear ( low requirement ). You could also be creative and mix it up a little.

A mage and warrior could invest in dexterity and cunning to increase crit rate and damage. One of my highest dps builds was a crit damage spirit mage. A little bit of strength can go a long way in making you less susceptible to flying everywhere when hit by a light breeze. Stacking health is never a bad idea, particularly for blood mages and duelist rogue tanks. A support oriented mage needs a lot of willpower to counteract %mana reserves in order to cast spells at all. Etc etc....

I'm sorry but people here are grossly underestimating the potential variety in DA2. Sure it's not as vast as Path Of Exile ( omg amazing game try it ), but it does the job given that DA2 isn't a focused action RPG but rather more story and character oriented.

[Maiden Crowe]

(1) Well, your point is taken. Skills don't have to be mandatory, but they can be "useful". Take the Survival skill in DAO. It let you know if enemies were nearby, and got better at this as you skilled it up. Now the thing is, you could play with it or without it, but it could affect your play. I think that's a good way to implement skills in a CRPG. Of course, that made Survival technically a combat skill. My guess is, Exploration Skills will be ones that work the same way, in regard to ... exploring. 

 

(2) Your point is taken, and I would love to prevail conversationally by my choice of words, but as we both know, in DA2 and then now in DAI, we are no longer choosing our (entire) words. 

 

(1) Not saying skills should be mandatory nor am I saying there should not be non-combat skills but you really need to be careful as to what you class and have as non-combat skills, survival is a skill that I would not like to see return as it represents both lazy design and needless complexity in character building, the more intuitive method of detecting creatures and their movements would be actually having the player pay attention to their surroundings or have a stealthy character scout ahead rather than pump points into the sixth sense skill, I mean that is traditionally why you have a rogue in your party, to scout ahead and locate enemies as well as detect traps and pick locks. Another method of giving the player hints as to what monsters may lurk in the area would be to give them visible clues, for instance if the area is infested with spiders one would expect to see lots of spider webs and cocooned bodies, if you are nearing the lair of a basilisk (not sure the Dragon Age universe has those but not the point) one would expect to see creatures encased in stone, let the player form their own conclusions rather than have a skill that just gives them all the answers.

 

(2) True but then what does that have to do with anything?

 

 

Well, the problem with your idea, fine as I may be with it (unless you bring back D&D rules in which case, no, thank you), is that it will undoubtedly limit your target audience. If the game becomes too complex to the point it is no longer enjoyable (except by some small, hardcore, fanbase), then that's the proverbial IT for the franchise.

 

 

Catering to the lowest common denominator? As much as I hate to admit it you do have a point and it really hurts me to see game development stifled by such concerns, however if these people truly hate using their brains cant Bioware cater to this audience by putting in a "story" mode like ME3 where any threat is felled by a light breeze and players don't have to concern themselves with such concerns like character building as the game assigns all their points for them?

[Maiden Crowe]

When I have to micromanage a party in combat with trash mobs, it takes me out of that. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for challenging boss fight that take some effort, but the trash mobs should go down to basic button mashing.

 

 

Personally I think the Dragon Age team rely far too heavily on trash mobs to pad out their games, they are neither fun nor challenging and their only purpose is to slow your progress, of course if you are in the middle of a major battle you would expect to be in combat fairly often however in a dungeon crawl a far better sense of atmosphere can be created by not having trash mobs ambush you every 5 seconds.

[CybAnt1]

the more intuitive method of detecting creatures and their movements would be actually having the player pay attention to their surroundings or have a stealthy character scout ahead rather than pump points into the sixth sense skill, I mean that is traditionally why you have a rogue in your party, to scout ahead and locate enemies as well as detect traps and pick locks. Another method of giving the player hints as to what monsters may lurk in the area would be to give them visible clues, for instance if the area is infested with spiders one would expect to see lots of spider webs and cocooned bodies, if you are nearing the lair of a basilisk (not sure the Dragon Age universe has those but not the point) one would expect to see creatures encased in stone, let the player form their own conclusions than have a skill that just gives them all the answers.

 

OK, it means extra area design work, putting in a lot of extra "scenery" to caves etc. Not saying your idea is bad, I'm not sure the devs will love it. So I know I'm getting near the spider lair if I see lots of cobwebs. And near the basilisk lair if I see people turned to stone? K. 

 

How do I know if I'm near the wolf cave? Lots of wolf droppings? I'm not sure this could always work in practice. 

 

Were I designing stuff, I might make said skill a rogue only skill anyway, perhaps even a ranger-spec only skill, and maybe it would only work in outdoor areas. (I mean, that seems like the vibe calling a skill called "survival" would do.) Thieves in D & D were supposed to be able to listen at doors, and presumably by listening figure out what kind of creatures were in the next room. Well, dunno. Were they really that good at telling kobold grunts from bugbear grunts from goblin grunts? It's a bit daft to think they can figure that out from audial clues alone.

 

Outdoors, I could see a ranger/tracker/hunter figuring out what's nearby from scent, footprints, other subtle visual clues that they don't have to physically add to the physical "scenery" of the area but what said figure might be noticing.

 

But that's me. 

 

In the end, we still don't know what the Exploration Skills are. I'll hope for your benefit something like tracking/survival isn't making a comeback. I didn't think it was that important, but did use it as an example of a skill that could be useful rather than a "you can't get past this point without it". 

[Maiden Crowe]

(1)OK, it means extra area design work, putting in a lot of extra "scenery" to caves etc. Not saying your idea is bad, I'm not sure the devs will love it. So I know I'm getting near the spider lair if I see lots of cobwebs. And near the basilisk lair if I see people turned to stone? K. 

 

(2)How do I know if I'm near the wolf cave? Lots of wolf droppings? I'm not sure this could always work in practice. 

 

(3)Were I designing stuff, I might make said skill a rogue only skill anyway, perhaps even a ranger-spec only skill, and maybe it would only work in outdoor areas. (I mean, that seems like the vibe calling a skill called "survival" would do.) Thieves in D & D were supposed to be able to listen at doors, and presumably by listening figure out what kind of creatures were in the next room. Well, dunno. Were they really that good at telling kobold grunts from bugbear grunts from goblin grunts? It's a bit daft to think they can figure that out from audial clues alone.

 

(1) Yes it would be extra work but if the Dragon Age team aren't willing to put in the extra work to really make their games shine then why should we support them?

 

(2) I was thinking half eaten corpses would be a better indicator but then you don't have to go overboard when placing visual clues as to what enemies are in the area, mostly major and hidden threats.

 

(3) A lot of features of pen and paper RPGs were designed around the limitations of a game that exist mostly in the imaginations of the players themselves, having no audio or visual component there is no way for the players to read environmental clues themselves so this necessitates the need for perceptive skills to be handled in other ways, CRPGs arent subject to these limitations and thus can handle them in more natural ways.

[OdanUrr]

Catering to the lowest common denominator? As much as I hate to admit it you do have a point and it really hurts me to see game development stifled by such concerns, however if these people truly hate using their brains cant Bioware cater to this audience by putting in a "story" mode like ME3 where any threat is felled by a light breeze and players don't have to concern themselves with such concerns like character building as the game assigns all their points for them?

 

"Catering to the lowest common denominator" is hyperbole but there is some truth in that, nowadays, games need to be inclusive. Games cost way too much to develop (even Kickstarter games) and they usually can't afford to alienate potential customers.

 

Maybe I can make myself clearer with an example. Say you introduced in DAO a number of rules concerning combat, potions, traps, etc. Then in DA2 you add to those rules. In DA3 you expand those rules even further. How is a person who's introduced to the world of Dragon Age with the third title supposed to react? The amount of information they'd need to absorb over the course of a single game, as opposed to someone who's absorbed the same information over the course of three games, is simply staggering. A tutorial? That could be a way to solve the problem... or create new ones. Create a lengthy tutorial and newcomers may become all to discouraged to continue further while long-term fans will curse your guts (I know I did every time I had to re-learn my assassin skills in AC3 and AC4). Create a short tutorial and odds are newcomers won't have absorbed half of that information.

 

Like it or not, the more complex and less enjoyable your game becomes, the more likely you'll lose people along the way, especially when there's a myriad of other titles they could be playing that are more accessible.

 

Maybe this is a better explanation?

 

[cJohnOne]

Well I don't like to manage my mage.  So I like maybe two burly guys out front and maybe a Rogue and a healer.  I don't see how the game will be improved for me by having changes.  Sure I like a new game to be different but that's how I basically like to play it.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem with any rule set is when it gets in the way of the primary purpose of the game which is to have fun. Fun is subjective. For example CybAnt1 probably would not like to see the return of weapons and armor that break, permadeath, limited ammo, food, drink, sleep and weight restrictions in the rule set. CybAnt1 may feel that limits the fun to be derived from the game.

 

I, on the other hand like the idea of weapons and armor breaking, limited ammo, permadeath, food, drink, sleep and weight restrictions in the rule set as a way of enhancing my fun. (In fact I am playing a indie title called Eschalon III by Basilisk games that has these enhancements. Yes, I am having a blast with it).

 

The developer has to balance simplicity versus complexity. Just adding a Story mode will not solve the problem of rule set complexity. I want the rule set more complex in certain areas CybAnt1 may not. 

 

You also have the moderate players would are not as hardcore as some of the posters on this forum. If there is to much complexity (call it the Realmzmaster's Way) some gamers will be put off from purchasing the game. That is bad for Bioware and EA.

[CybAnt1]

The problem with any rule set is when it gets in the way of the primary purpose of the game which is to have fun. Fun is subjective. For example CybAnt1 probably would not like to see the return of weapons and armor that break (*), permadeath (**), limited ammo (***), food, drink, sleep (****) and weight restrictions (*****) in the rule set. CybAnt1 may feel that limits the fun to be derived from the game.

 

 

Cool. I'm glad there's somebody who thinks I am not hardcore enough! It's a relief! "Blasted casuals!" (I kid, I kid.) (P.S. I'm still not positive our philosophies align, Realmz, but you might want to join the Grognards.) 

 

On WoW, I am the ultimate casual. I'm not in a guild, I don't do hardcore raiding, and have I mentioned I hate healing in those rare instances I'm not playing solo? Scenarios are my favorite grouping situations. Zap, pair me with 2 other people, let's do stuff for 30 minutes or less, done! 

 

So let me deal with your asterisked items:

 

(*) Actually, would be fine. WoW has weapon/armor damage. Just about any armor or weapon vendor or blacksmith can repair it. You usually get large amounts of it from dying, or small amounts from regular battle. It does take a long time for stuff to break, and I can't remember the last time this happened, since I'm as anal about routinely repairing my stuff as I am keeping my car's gas tank topped off. I can live with this in a SRPG too - if the repair places are numerous, and cheap. 

 

(**) If this means, when you/the PC/the entire party die, there is no reloading to a previous save ... well, no, it's not my cup of tea. Other people can have it, though. Other times it means when companions are dead in battle, they're dead (not unconscious), and further in this game, no resurrecting. Well, I'm not sure if I'd like that either. 

 

(***) I'm back and forth on this, but as I reflect on it, maybe DAO's system of unlimited regular ammo (arrows, bolts, etc.) and limited "special" (magic) ammo, was not so bad. I have to confess, I didn't miss the ammo bags terribly, when WoW went to a unlimited-ammo system. 

 

(****) Don't see a point to sleep in games without a rest/Vancian mechanic. That said, I guess I don't mind if this game has a day/night cycle, and hitting the sleep button lets me see a nice cutscene of everybody getting their z's, then it's 8 hours "automagically" later. Oh yeah, and if that's outdoors near a lot of beasties, yes, possibility of random encounters. Food and drink ... well, WoW has you use them for mana and health regeneration, but ... given the rate they regenerate naturally, few people are using them a lot unless they have stat buffs. Systems where you have to eat and drink periodically or die ... well, dunno, just haven't played those in soooo long a time. 

 

(*****) I'm OK with them. They were fine in BG2. That said, though, in general, you can't implement them in games where there is a shared party inventory (like all the DA games), instead of a personal inventory for each character. Because characters will vary in strength and carrying capacity. 

 

To move from the specific to the general, I do get your point that games need to balance complexity (the kind that some "hardcore" might enjoy) vs. tedium, and my personal position has always been that if complexity is ultimately just tedium for tedium's sake, most won't find it fun (I know I usually don't). I know one solution for this 'problem' is for the game to be open to modding, and have modders put these in as options who want them. But I don't think we'll have that possibility for DA:I.

[CybAnt1]

Also, one other separate point I'd like to make.

 

Personally, I think it's good that a CRPG keeps a lot of numbers and stat crunchiness invisible in the background.

 

At the end of the day, there's going to be two kinds of players. 

 

Those who don't care why they're missing or hitting, or how much damage they're doing. And BTW for them, no, lots of floaty numbers and stuff don't have to crowd their field of vision. 

 

And those who do. Why did I miss that time? Why do I keep missing? What could I do to help make my character miss less often? Etc. 

 

The fact is, though, even DA2 had mechanics. They're there! Streamlined a bit from DAO, but still behind the scenes. They just sort of took this weird attitude, though, that you should never see its "number-iness" and what was going on behind the scenes. 

 

Yes folks! Math! Percentages! Formulas! Calculations! It was all there. The mechanics that were still there the whole time:

http://dragonage.wik...(Dragon_Age_II)

 

I guess what I would say is, good on them for keeping them out of sight and out of mind for whoever didn't want to deal with them or look at them.

 

The question I have is, if they're there, why not let some players who do want to see them, know them, and even crunch them, do that also? Have a combat log. It can be hidden until you summon it. Have a floaty numbers option. (It won't require MUCH puppy death.) Have optional tooltips. Have documentation on mechanics for those who WANT to look at it in-game, especially if it does help understand what the numbery stuff on items MEANS. Otherwise, yes, don't bother putting number stuff on items if you don't want people in turn to at least try and figure out what it means. 

 

EDIT: OK, and one more thing. In general, where I *do* want more complexity, it's usually because it also results in more control over your character or party, not the opposite. Full-text can add complexity to the dialogue system, but I want it as it means more control over what you're saying. Some people hate having to keep swapping armor pieces on their companions, but to me, this means more control over what they're wearing/using. Some people hate the level up screen and point allocations, but for me it's my moment of Zen Nirvana, where I can sit and think over how to take my character to the next 'level' - literally. I guess that's how I roll. 

[vania z]

You have to be careful with environments that speak for themselves and persuasion based solely on your ability. FPS lay down this road.

[vania z]

Double post

[Maiden Crowe]

<snip>

 

Yes we get it, complexity for complexities sake is never a good thing and will only alienate players, however to achieve some level of depth you will at least need some level of complexity and the problem is the Dragon Age series has eliminated complexity to the point that the gameplay lacks any real depth.

 

 

You have to be careful with environments that speak for themselves and persuasion based solely on your ability. FPS lay down this road.

 

What?!?

 

Perhaps you should explain that one to me.

[vania z]

FPS=first person shooters. They relay solely on player skill and not characters abilities. Of course modern shooters have some RPG elements.

[Maiden Crowe]

FPS=first person shooters. They relay solely on player skill and not characters abilities. Of course modern shooters have some RPG elements.

 

Yes I understand what the term "FPS" means and that was not the part of your post I was questioning, the part I was questioning is how exactly does a game requiring a player to use their brain turn it into a FPS?

[vania z]

Easily. If your character can't aim, but you aim good in skyrim you are going to hit all your targets. If your character does not know how to track animals, but you do, you are going to use your skill, instead of the skill of your character. It gets mixed more and more with fps. There should be some mix, otherwise you just select starting parameters and the game will play itself:) but you should know where to stop. In my opinion persuasion skill is just what is needed. As is survival. What DA:o was lacking is darkspawn sense, about which we were told but used only in several cutscenes.

[Maiden Crowe]

Easily. If your character can't aim, but you aim good in skyrim you are going to hit all your targets. If your character does not know how to track animals, but you do, you are going to use your skill, instead of the skill of your character. It gets mixed more and more with fps. There should be some mix, otherwise you just select starting parameters and the game will play itself:) but you should know where to stop. In my opinion persuasion skill is just what is needed. As is survival. What DA:o was lacking is darkspawn sense, about which we were told but used only in several cutscenes.

 

And why exactly is a form of gameplay where the effectiveness of certain actions is determined by character skill rather than player skill desirable in an RPG? I can see how this system would have its merits in a game like the Sims where you play the role of god toying with and providing stimulus for the characters you have created and seeing how they react, however in a game that puts you in the role of the protagonist why should the PC's problem solving abilities and conversational skills be determined by a number assigned to a statistic? 

[vania z]

Well, it is desirable because it allows you to play different characters instead of playing yourself in a fantasy world. If your goal is to live a life in a fantasy world, than games with simple mechanics like skyrim which depend more on your skill a better suited for you.

[Wulfram]

Yes we get it, complexity for complexities sake is never a good thing and will only alienate players, however to achieve some level of depth you will at least need some level of complexity and the problem is the Dragon Age series has eliminated complexity to the point that the gameplay lacks any real depth.

 

DA2 has much more complexity than XCOM, for example, and also much less depth.  Same with chess.