272 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I've read a lot of complaints about DAI's supposedly lacking roleplaying dimension. Most of those complaints cite the streamlined ability and attribute system, simplifying of tactical combat etc.. as the reason. And they have it all wrong.

 

Why? In short, they mix up the game dimension and the storytelling dimension of roleplaying and mistake the former as the genre's core. They mistake the dimension that lets you define *what* you are (read "you" as the character you're playing from here on) through the game rules as the core, while it's actually the dimension that lets you express *who* you are by making decisions within the framework of a story.

 

This confusion is grounded in the history of the genre. Many traditional roleplayers are used to thick rulebooks - or their digital equivalents - that let them make a game of creating their characters' skills and talents, and they derive much of their fun from playing with that system and using it, mostly in combat, because traditionally, that's the only thing video games have been able to simulate well. Computers are machines that use rules. Ideas not easily captured by rules are far harder to implement in a video game, yet they are important for the more meaningful dimension of roleplaying. 

 

What am I talking about? Well, how meaningful is the decision to either kill an opponent with a sword or with a spell? I'd say not very meaningful, yet that is what rpg rules traditionally allow you to define. Much more meaningful is the decision to kill or not to kill an opponent, yet most video rpgs take that decision out of our hands and force us into deadly combat again and again.

 

So now consider Dragon Age: Inquisition and ask: how many *meaningful* decisions do you make in this game, decisions that say something about who you are rather than what you are? You do that, every time you judge a prisoner, every time you send a specific advisor on a war table operation that resolves some minor plot somewhere, every time you make a major plot decision, influence a character in dialogue, resolve another character's problem in a specific way or even talk about your beliefs. DAI has probably more than a hundred of such decisions, way more than any other Bioware game ever had. The only game that did this better in my opinion was Fallout: New Vegas, but that came at the price of a lackluster presentation with much less emotional impact.

 

At the end of the game, you can answer the question of who you are in the world of Thedas by pointing at everything you influenced with your decisions and say "I am the person who made things this way, and I am (fully/not/mostly) pleased with it". For me, that is the essence of roleplaying, and the more technical aspects of building and building up a character mere decoration. I love that decoration, but if resource constraints make it necessary to sacrifice something from one dimension in order to enhance the other, then I'd rather sacrifice from the decoration. Which is what DAI has done by simplifying the attribute and ability system, and which is why I am, some annoying flaws notwithstanding, immensely happy with this game.

 

TL;DR:

DAI is a very good roleplaying game because it focuses on making meaningful decisions that say something about who you are, even if that comes at the expense of the more technical aspects of the traditional roleplaying genre.

[Itkovian]

To be fair, DAI does allows you to make plenty of decisions concerning your character build. It's just tied to your skill trees and gear.

 

Heck, they certainly made specializations (a core part of what defines your character through the rules) much more significant in both storytelling and mechanics wise (and the quests for the warrior at least were pretty nice, and it was good to see your decision reflected in conversations).

[Pasquale1234]

Excellent points.

Should I assume that the issues with dialogue choices / paraphrasing have also been resolved to your satisfaction in this title?

[Ieldra]

Excellent points.

Should I assume that the issues with dialogue choices / paraphrasing have also been resolved to your satisfaction in this title?

Not entirely. Paraphrasing remains a problem especially where the topics get more complex - I have a few examples in my DAI diary - but it's way better than in ME3.  

[Ieldra]

To be fair, DAI does allows you to make plenty of decisions concerning your character build. It's just tied to your skill trees and gear.

 

Heck, they certainly made specializations (a core part of what defines your character through the rules) much more significant in both storytelling and mechanics wise (and the quests for the warrior at least were pretty nice, and it was good to see your decision reflected in conversations).

Yes, that is quite true. The dimensions are not wholly separate and shouldn't be. Still, the decisions you make in the story are mostly independent from what you are. The only aspects of that which go into the story are your race and whether you're a mage or not.

[AshesEleven]

I agree. In many ways I feel like this is the most unique character I've been able to create in a role playing game. So many choices and dialogue options that allow me to make him my own.

[Pasquale1234]

Not entirely. Paraphrasing remains a problem especially where the topics get more complex - I have a few examples in my DAI diary - but it's way better than in ME3.

Wow - I hadn't seen your diary. Great read thus far - thank you.

[Farangbaa]

There's no pickpocketing, this is not a true RPG

Quotes like the above make me increasingly hesitant to join discussions like these. No idea what's going in the heads of some people, but my mind just blows up when I read nonsense like that.

[MarchWaltz]

Yeah, it's such a good rpg it changes your accent midway through because I do that ALL THE TIME 

[Lebanese Dude]

Good post leldra.

[AshesEleven]

Quotes like the above make me increasingly hesitant to join discussions like these. No idea what's going in the heads of some people, but my mind just blows up when I read nonsense like that.

 

For some reason I got a notification that you were quoting me and I was thinking "What?!  When did I say that?"

 

Confusion ensued.  

[Cyonan]

Inquisition has plenty of decisions that let you shape what kind of character you want to be, but it doesn't do so well on acknowledging those choices in-game. Most of the time I judged somebody there was nothing other than a single adviser mission. Those missions themselves didn't really have any effect that you get to see in-game either.
 

It does great with major plot points, but the smaller ones don't seem to get much.

 

It's also a BioWare game so you get the big epic story but are forced to choose within that. It's not a bad thing, but it is less roleplaying choice compared to say, Fallout 3 where I can walk away from the story and become a slaver if I want to.

[Farangbaa]

For some reason I got a notification that you were quoting me and I was thinking "What?!  When did I say that?"

 

Confusion ensued.  

 

I don't think it was you who said that. But as I put in the quote, I don't remember the guy/gal's name

 

You get notifications for being quoted? Cause I was just being lazy as *bleep* by using your post to get the quote code

[Saresi]

I agree with the points made. Dragon Age: I is actually a good RPG. Far from VERY good or perfect, but good.

[Ieldra]

Inquisition has plenty of decisions that let you shape what kind of character you want to be, but it doesn't do so well on acknowledging those choices in-game. Most of the time I judged somebody there was nothing other than a single adviser mission. Those missions themselves didn't really have any effect that you get to see in-game either.
 

It does great with major plot points, but the smaller ones don't seem to get much.

 

It's also a BioWare game so you get the big epic story but are forced to choose within that. It's not a bad thing, but it is less roleplaying choice compared to say, Fallout 3 where I can walk away from the story and become a slaver if I want to.

It is regrettable, but I understand there are limits on the game's responsiveness to minor decisions. What I would like, though, is more responsiveness to important character-defining statements. For instance, when you say you're not anyone's Herald, Cassandra later refers to that and asks you if that also means you don't believe in the Maker. That's good responsiveness, I would've liked to have the same from other important statements I make, but it's sometimes lacking. It doesn't devalue the decision though, and thus it's not a critical flaw.

[AshesEleven]

I don't think it was you who said that. But as I put in the quote, I don't remember the guy/gal's name

You get notifications for being quoted? Cause I was just being lazy as *bleep* by using your post to get the quote code

Yeah I do

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

It is a horrible game for roleplaying actually. Some spoilers.

Spoiler

Can not attempt to join Corypheus
Can not use your ancor to enter the black city even though you hold the key
Can not talk or attempt to persuade Corypheus
Your Inquisitor has a default negative stand on Tevinter + Slavery, I could not say that I support Tevinter or Slavery
Morals and such are forced upon you

You have no power to dispand the chantry
You can not take your Inquisition to conquer Thedas

All in all. You dont play your Inquisitor. You play Bioware's Inquisitor. A boring archetype heroic goody-two-shoes knight/knightess in shining armor which is so self rightious that it hurts.

Roleplaying your character? Forget it. The only thing you can attempt is to minimize the damage.

 

[Cyonan]

It is regrettable, but I understand there are limits on the game's responsiveness to minor decisions. What I would like, though, is more responsiveness to important character-defining statements. For instance, when you say you're not anyone's Herald, Cassandra later refers to that and asks you if that also means you don't believe in the Maker. That's good responsiveness, I would've liked to have the same from other important statements I make, but it's sometimes lacking. It doesn't devalue the decision though, and thus it's not a critical flaw.

 

For me not having that acknowledgement does devalue the choice a bit.

 

I'll have to see if Cass mentions believing in the maker in my second playthrough where the character is going to say that they believe they're the herald. My first one started off with a "I don't know" and got the same conversation you did. It was a nice touch that I could say that I believe in the Elven creators, though.

 

It is a horrible game for roleplaying actually. Some spoilers.

 

You've always had to play BioWare's story in their games, but you wouldn't get that entire list or anywhere close to it outside of a pen and paper campaign.

 

The closest you'll probably come in video games is Fallout.

[Petedj06]

It is a horrible game for roleplaying actually. Some spoilers.

Spoiler

Can not attempt to join Corypheus
Can not use your ancor to enter the black city even though you hold the key
Can not talk or attempt to persuade Corypheus
Your Inquisitor has a default negative stand on Tevinter + Slavery, I could not say that I support Tevinter or Slavery
Morals and such are forced upon you
You have no power to dispand the chantry
You can not take your Inquisition to conquer Thedas
All in all. You dont play your Inquisitor. You play Bioware's Inquisitor. A boring archetype heroic goody-two-shoes knight/knightess in shining armor which is so self rightious that it hurts.

Roleplaying your character? Forget it. The only thing you can attempt is to minimize the damage.

They could also be in development until 2973. Fact is the game needs to be released at some point. There is only so much content that can be created for one game. At least DA:I has completely different missions related to different choices. They could have just pulled a Rachni queen again.

[Ieldra]

It is a horrible game for roleplaying actually. Some spoilers.

Spoiler

Can not attempt to join Corypheus
Can not use your ancor to enter the black city even though you hold the key
Can not talk or attempt to persuade Corypheus
Your Inquisitor has a default negative stand on Tevinter + Slavery, I could not say that I support Tevinter or Slavery
Morals and such are forced upon you

You have no power to dispand the chantry
You can not take your Inquisition to conquer Thedas

All in all. You dont play your Inquisitor. You play Bioware's Inquisitor. A boring archetype heroic goody-two-shoes knight/knightess in shining armor which is so self rightious that it hurts.

Roleplaying your character? Forget it. The only thing you can attempt is to minimize the damage.

 

We must play different games. You can get a rather dark Inquisition if you really want to. And you can definitely be pragmatic, just read some of the war table operations or talk to Leliana about things when she's ready for it. That you can't join the villain, well, Bioware would have to write a completely different story just for the 0.00001% of players who'd want that. I can't fault them for not doing it.

 

Edit:

Actually, how about this: you attempt to join the Elder One and are treated to a scene where after a short time as his general, you are sacrificed in some horrible blood magic ritual. Game over. Not happy? Sorry, you can't say this isn't very plausible. If I was Bioware, I would be sorely tempted to troll people who want to join the villain this way.

[Jherock]

People nowadays are messed-up in regards to terms like "role playing."  But it's really very simple:  unless it's YOU on the screen, you're playing a 'role,' so most games are RPG's by default, while silly added acronyms like MMO "massively multiplayer online" are nothing but attempts to add diversity to a very very limited category.  And since this game is SO massive with so much content and so many characters and ways to play them, it is the VERY epitome of "role playing" diversity and depth.

 

Semantics that some more-stubborn people clamor about mean nothing.

 

Again, ANY AND EVERY TIME YOU AREN'T PLAYING YOURSELF ON SCREEN, YOU'RE ROLE-PLAYING.  PERIOD.

[Vox Draco]

I can of course only speak to myself ... but for me, a good RPG is: captivating me. And this mainly happens through the story, characters involved, the world its set in.

 

Combat-mechanics are...not so important to me. For example Divinity: original Sin has wonderfully turn-based combat thats a lot of fun ... still I struggle to play on, because...the world bores me to death, as does the story, and the NPCs are boring as well .. no reason for me to care, none to play...

 

Elder Scrolls? Its mostly the intriguing game-world that sucks me in. the rich and often contradicting history. Thedas has this as well. I love it.

 

Pick-Pocket? In a CRPG this usually means "reload til loot-aquired" anyway, no wonder they got rid of it. And in that regard: Wasteland 2 has a HUGE amount of abilities you can equip your party with...but many hardly play a role gameplay-wise anyway...

 

Also Inquisition enthralls me every time: With its settings, quests, I still think about the game and my Quizzy while not playing, because I grow attached to her and her posse. That's what makes a good RPG for me, and this goes beyond combat, classes, mechanics.

[Farangbaa]

Combat-mechanics are...not so important to me. For example Divinity: original Sin has wonderfully turn-based combat thats a lot of fun ... still I struggle to play on, because...the world bores me to death, as does the story, and the NPCs are boring as well .. no reason for me to care, none to play...

 

I'm not alone...

 

Don't get me wrong, I love myself some good mechanics, but if the world doesn't captivate me those mechanics are useless.

[Cyonan]

People nowadays are messed-up in regards to terms like "role playing."  But it's really very simple:  unless it's YOU on the screen, you're playing a 'role,' so most games are RPG's by default, while silly added acronyms like MMO "massively multiplayer online" are nothing but attempts to add diversity to a very very limited category.  And since this game is SO massive with so much content and so many characters and ways to play them, it is the VERY epitome of "role playing" diversity and depth.

 

Semantics that some more-stubborn people clamor about mean nothing.

 

Again, ANY AND EVERY TIME YOU AREN'T PLAYING YOURSELF ON SCREEN, YOU'RE ROLE-PLAYING.  PERIOD.

 

When people talk about role playing in video games, we really mean role playing as a character that we get to create and shape rather than role playing as the character the game hands to us.

 

and no, we don't particularly care that we're not technically using the term "role playing" right =P

[wrdnshprd]

there are certain game systems we expect with certain genres..

 

for shooters:  do you expect to be able to.. well.. shoot and rely on your individual skill to do well in the game.. or do you want a game where you manipulate stats?  well imagine if they eliminated the skill aspect and required you to rely on stat manipulation and min/maxing to do well in the game.  how would you react?

 

well its the same for RPGs.  players of the genre expect min/maxing.. expect an inventory/loot system, expect a lot of skill management, etc.  when you take those away and turn it into an action game.. how else do you expect people to react..

 

THE ABOVE BEING SAID.. DA:I does NOT necessarily suffer from the above.

 

this game HAS the rpg systems we come to expect.. stat manipulation (via gear and skill selection), an inventory system, min/maxing, etc.. those systems are there.

 

the problem is, the fans that have been with the series since the beginning also have certain expectations.  we expected that the cRPG experience was going to continue with DA:I.. well i think its safe to say this game is no longer a cRPG like baldur's gate.  hence the complaints.

 

if bioware/EA would have been more transparent with us and informed us of this change in philosophy BEFORE LAUNCH AND PRE-ORDER.. most of the outcry could have been diminished.. however, like in previous games, this didnt happen.. hence the complaints.

 

for me.. even though i was disappointed with the removal of the cRPG game mechanics, i was STILL happy with the game.  it has the systems i expect from an RPG, the combat system actually works fine with a controller.. its just different.. and the story/choices are well done... so in the end, i can say i enjoyed the experience... but that doesnt mean the above criticisms arent valid.