Medhia_Nox analogies are pointless, very true just as arguing over of a game classification is, but very fun, more fun than DAI
Oh and if already you played the games listed, replay them, sometimes memory kind of forgets.
choice feature plus conversation options at is best, grey, black, white and blue if I want to.
Useless analogie for Medhia_Nox. Hmm I think I gonna get myself a Renault F-150 Pick up Truck
I do agree with one point, I wish there were more times when there was a threat of losing things and stepping back. That would have made the game better. But I disagree, that DA:O is a better RPG then DA:I. The same mechanisms were used, just differently. I felt way more capable of expressing the personality I wanted my character to enbody in this game, then it that one. And here we come down to preferences. I dislike black-white, I am all for grey.
And like I said, that's fine with me. I prefer a plethora of options, I think making everything grey is ineffectual. If you keep getting your hand slapped for absolutely everything that you do, you stop caring why your hand was slapped, you just start to become numb to it.
As if you had any choice of not finding the treaties. You didn't really go out of your way to find them.
I do wish there was a 5-10 minutes gameplay before the beggining, in which you are given a background on why you are in the place you are (like with Dalish the Keeper telling you, that you must check out this Haven place where shems go on about this war). After all story wise (even if you don't play it out in cinematics), your character went there to do something, and decided to step up and stop the ritual by storming in and asking what the hell is going on.
My only grype with DA:O was, that my first two characters would actually not have joined the Wardens given the chance. I still think it is a great game, I just had to make characters who wanted to be Wardens, and then it was wonderful.
@Bladenight1481: Well, since we're doing this - saying: "It's a bad RPG" doesn't make you right either.
Saying: "I don't like it - here's why." That totally valid though.
Fair enough. ::clears throat::
"It is my opinion that this is a poorly written RPG."
There you go
Uhmn, if you play grey, you won't get your hand slapped for everyething. If you play black in a white surrounding, then you do or if you play white in a balck surrounding then you do too. But grey is not a unicolor, it is a lot of hues, that is why two grey can be so very different, and that is diversity.
With grey you will have some backpats here and some handslaps there, some step on the toes here and some edges gained there.
Just because it appears to me as if you thought I am saying you are not entitled to your enjoyment in any game you wish, of course you are.
You can like what you want and I can like what I want and since we are gamers, we are both right in our own settings, since our point is to have fun with the game we are playing.
Still we can discuss differences of views which might bring a bigger understanding toward the views of others, even if you can not necessarily integrate that in your own preferences.
As if you had any choice of not finding the treaties. You didn't really go out of your way to find them.
I do wish there was a 5-10 minutes gameplay before the beggining, in which you are given a background on why you are in the place you are (like with Dalish the Keeper telling you, that you must check out this Haven place where shems go on about this war). After all story wise (even if you don't play it out in cinematics), your character went there to do something, and decided to step up and stop the ritual by storming in and asking what the hell is going on.My only grype with DA:O was, that my first two characters would actually not have joined the Wardens given the chance. I still think it is a great game, I just had to make characters who wanted to be Wardens, and then it was wonderful.
And that is my point. Its not horrible. It feels like a drafted copy that needed a few more adjustments before sending out to be printed. Just a few things here and there and I think the game is one of the best, as is..its good. I put it on a Lords of the Fallen or KoA level myself. Its not anything I will remember for very long and I have no desire to replay it. The decisions are just too..similar.
I disagree.
If an RPG forces morals upon you (which breaks a lot of characters just like that), then it is not a "very good role playing game". An example of this is the Templar quest with the envy demon and when talking to Dorian about slavery.
The game WANTS you to play as a goody two shoes kind of character, otherwise you'll just end up being a hypocrite. When accepting a fetch quest from an NPC you only get ONE option in the dialogue choice; which is always said in a really nice way. In DAO you could demand payment for your services most of the time. In DAI, most of the time the inquisitor just says "I'll do this for you".
Uhmn, if you play grey, you won't get your hand slapped for everyething. If you play black in a white surrounding, then you do or if you play white in a balck surrounding then you do too. But grey is not a unicolor, it is a lot of hues, that is why two grey can be so very different, and that is diversity.
With grey you will have some backpats here and some handslaps there, some step on the toes here and some edges gained there.
Just because it appears to me as if you thought I am saying you are not entitled to your enjoyment in any game you wish, of course you are.
You can like what you want and I can like what I want and since we are gamers, we are both right in our own settings, since our point is to have fun with the game we are playing.
Still we can discuss differences of views which might bring a bigger understanding toward the views of others, even if you can not necessarily integrate that in your own preferences.
the whole grey, black and white thing is kind of off topic. Its more of a story element than a gaming element, even though it does have to do with this particular game.
My issue personally with the grey decisions is that in this game, most of the grey decisions are handed down by narrative reasons, not game play decisions. It's not a jumping puzzle, its an invisible wall. I realize that no game can truthfully give a table top experience and thus unlimited choice, it's just asking too much of any system or game. However when I can see the enemy in the cut scene and not chase them down..it feels quite limiting.
The issue is not that I want everything in black and white, nor do I want everything in grey. I want many different choices that all have varying impact and some based on what I have done, not just what the writer has written.
I don't want you to disregard my question as not serious, because it is, but would you enjoy playing this game if it had no combat at all and you just went between the conversations with the same dialogue options available?
I wrote a wall of text earlier in the thread about how I want the game mechanics to be intertwined with the story telling so that I can feel that the choices I make are because I overcame something and formed my character in such a way that it was possible to overcome the challenges presented to me.
A lot of you seem to be of the opinion that as long as the game has RP it doesn't need the G to be good. That simply doesn't do it for me. I have played the game for a few hours more than 30 hours and I have quit because the tactical camera and the combat drive me nuts.
To expand a bit on my original question: are you even looking for an RPG, i.e. a role playing GAME, or just role playing? Would you be just as happy if DA:I were a visual novel?
It'd be nice to see your answers to my questions. Remember that I see nothing wrong in preferring the RP part more than the G part of the equation and if you think DA:I is a clear candidate for GOTY then I'm happy for you and hope you get many more hours of enjoyment out of it!
edit: Grammar is hard...
Modifié par AddeKKola, 05 décembre 2014 - 09:58 .
I don't want you to disregard my question as not serious, because it is, but would you enjoy playing this game if it had no combat at all and you just went between the conversations with the same dialogue options available?
I wrote a wall of text earlier in the thread about how I want the game mechanics to be intertwined with the story telling so that I can feel that the choices I do are because I overcame something and formed my character in such a way that it can overcome the challenges presented to me.
A lot of you seem to be of the opinion that as long as the game has RP it doesn't need the G to be good. That simply doesn't do it for me. I have played the game for a few hours more than 30 hours and I have quit because the tactical camera and the combat drive me nuts.
To expand a bit on my original question: are you even looking for an RPG, i.e. a role playing GAME, or just role playing? Would you be just as happy if DA:I were a visual novel?
I'd be nice to see your answers to my questions. Remember that I see nothing wrong in preferring the RP part more than the G part of the equation and if you think DA:I is a clear candidate for GOTY, I'm happy for you and hope you get many more hours of enjoyment out of it!
No I definitely need the G part of RPG. I have written extensively about how I despise the tac cam, arbitrary 8 slot limit and lack of logic based tactics. Its just not what this topic is about.
yeah, but the topic states "a good role playing game", though...if it's only about RP we could talk about role-playing as therapy or something. It's where role-playing was first implemented as far as I know (for the staff and shrinks).
No I definitely need the G part of RPG. I have written extensively about how I despise the tac cam, arbitrary 8 slot limit and lack of logic based tactics. Its just not what this topic is about.
I think you might have misunderstood me a tiny bit and I might not have expressed myself clear enough.
For me the RP aspect and the game aspect of an RPG is intertwined. There can be a lot of choices and freedom to do what you want without it being an RPG. The RP dimension needs to be tied into the game dimension for me to enjoy the game. To quote the OP in the first post:
"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."
The OP is claiming, as I read it, that it is your decisions that matter and the game mechanics are just there as fluff while the narrative is the heart. Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation. Therefore I ask if they'd play this game even if it were a visual novel, since that really only has the RP bit.
I just need the stas, skills or whatever to influence how I can progress through a story for it to be a really good RPG. If that's lacking I want it to at least be an enjoyable game with an enjoyable story. For me an RPG lives and dies by the G.
edit: me fail english? taht's unpossible!
Ashen nedra, very true. As a game giving you an adventure, I think it manages. Playing YOUR inquisitor, there the RPG fail list starts.
I disagree.
If an RPG forces morals upon you (which breaks a lot of characters just like that), then it is not a "very good role playing game". An example of this is the Templar quest with the envy demon and when talking to Dorian about slavery.
The game WANTS you to play as a goody two shoes kind of character, otherwise you'll just end up being a hypocrite. When accepting a fetch quest from an NPC you only get ONE option in the dialogue choice; which is always said in a really nice way. In DAO you could demand payment for your services most of the time. In DAI, most of the time the inquisitor just says "I'll do this for you".
So...what about encouraging Leliana to be ruthless, putting a militarist usurper on the Orlesian throne, ordering assassinations, executing someone for a petty insult and other things. Doesn't sound like goody-two-shoes to me.
You can be ruthless. What you can't be is an evil megalomaniac, the kind who sees what the templar/mage missions show you and goes "Yesss! I want that!" I wonder why you're surprised by that. Bioware's last game that let you do that was Throne of Bhaal.
As for those examples, I'll have to check them for myself. I don't recall any problem in a conversation with Dorian.
I would totally not mind bluebooking the fight. In games like this combat is an important part and I want the skills to determine how much chances I have for winning, but if there was an autoroll this battle and move on part, I would use it every now and then on my own. Some battles, which matter emotionally, I would not skip. But there would be no complaint on my side. (This doen't mean I don't play shooters, I just like role playing better.)
The game is about the story. My character is about personality. I want to see how differently my character and others evolve mentally and personally throughout the story and if their interaction varies.
I think you might have misunderstood me a tiny bit and I might not have expressed myself clear enough.
For me the RP aspect and the game aspect of an RPG is intertwined. There can be a lot of choices and freedom to do what you want without it being an RPG. The RP dimension needs to be tied into the game dimension for me to enjoy the game. To quote the OP in the first post:
"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."
The OP is claiming, as I read it, that it is your decisions that matter and the game mechanics are just there as fluff while the narrative is the heart. Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation. Therefore I ask if they'd play this game even if it were a visual novel, since that really only has the RP bit.
I just need the stas, skills or whatever to influence how I can progress through a story for it to be a really good RPG. If that's lacking I want it to at least be an enjoyable game with an enjoyable story. For me an RPG lives and dies by the G.
edit: me fail english? taht's unpossible!
For me at least, I definitely could not define my character through narrative alone or game play alone. Definitely has to be both, that being said I think the level of character customization in this game is sorely lacking.
So...what about encouraging Leliana to be ruthless, putting a militarist usurper on the Orlesian throne, ordering assassinations, executing someone for a petty insult and other things. Doesn't sound like goody-two-shoes to me.
You can be ruthless. What you can't be is an evil megalomaniac, the kind who sees what the templar/mage missions show you and goes "Yesss! I want that!" I wonder why you're surprised by that. Bioware's last game that let you do that was Throne of Bhaal.
As for those examples, I'll have to check them for myself. I don't recall any problem in a conversation with Dorian.
The OP is claiming, as I read it, that it is your decisions that matter and the game mechanics are just there as fluff while the narrative is the heart. Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation. Therefore I ask if they'd play this game even if it were a visual novel, since that really only has the RP bit.
Not fluff, no. But secondary. Mechanics have to be there but they can be slim, they don't need to be intricate as in a tactical simulation.
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.
considering I have seen zero truly dark choices we can make (thing may backfire on us and get people killed but nothing to rival the Redcliff decisions in DA:O, or the level of nasty BG allowed us), I can't agree that it is very good, being straight jacketed into 'good guy' isn't that much RP freedom, still a good game, but not very good or great.
So...what about encouraging Leliana to be ruthless, putting a militarist usurper on the Orlesian throne, ordering assassinations, executing someone for a petty insult and other things. Doesn't sound like goody-two-shoes to me.
You can be ruthless. What you can't be is an evil megalomaniac, the kind who sees what the templar/mage missions show you and goes "Yesss! I want that!" I wonder why you're surprised by that. Bioware's last game that let you do that was Throne of Bhaal.
As for those examples, I'll have to check them for myself. I don't recall any problem in a conversation with Dorian.
Sure, you can do those things and be an a$$hole, but then you contradict yourself the next time you accept a fetch quest in a really nice manner. Even the investigate options are said in a very neutral/nice manner which makes it even more harder. This is partly a problem with having a voiced protagonist.
My point is that the only type of character that is believable and has any continuity is a goody-two-shoes kind of character.
I would totally not mind bluebooking the fight. In games like this combat is an important part and I want the skills to determine how much chances I have for winning, but if there was an autoroll this battle and move on part, I would use it every now and then on my own. Some battles, which matter emotionally, I would not skip. But there would be no complaint on my side. (This doen't mean I don't play shooters, I just like role playing better.)
The game is about the story. My character is about personality. I want to see how differently my character and others evolve mentally and personally throughout the story and if their interaction varies.
For me at least, I definitely could not define my character through narrative alone or game play alone. Definitely has to be both, that being said I think the level of character customization in this game is sorely lacking.
Lianaar and Bladenite, thank you for the insight!
Not fluff, no. But secondary. Mechanics have to be there but they can be slim, they don't need to be intricate as in a tactical simulation.
When you say it's secondary, where do you draw the line? What do you want to get out of the game play?
If the game play isn't challenging, in-depth or very connected to what's going on there's a good chance I'll loose interest rather quickly. Are you for instance happy with the whole "do stuff to earn points to be able to unlock more of the main story"-thing they've got going on? Personally I kind of don't care for the things I do to unlock the points. That's because to me there's such a disconnect between being the Inquisitor, lord saviour of the Inquisition, and running around on errands. It doesn't really feel like I'm doing anything other than mindless grinding to earn the right to more of the good stuff.
Edit: By extension the mindless nature of the tasks then diminish the impact "the good stuff" has since I feel it just happens because I sunk a bunch of time into the game and not because I actually accomplished something.
Modifié par AddeKKola, 05 décembre 2014 - 11:06 .
Again Leldra, nothing to do with your character, just like those YOU ARE THE HERO books, no skill, no feature no racial traits, or contact did help, influence, determine the course of action or result. Yes you had a choice to do but in no way the creation of your character did minimise or expand the choices in the situation. All is generic as the armor selection, what ever the kind of character you did.I remember in NWN had a character so min max for combat that dialogue was almost impossible, had to rely on companions to get info, was very funny.
Ah....now I understand. OK, that's a valid point. You criticize the lack of integration of the game mechanics and the storytelling dimension. This is indeed a significant downside in terms of roleplaying. I mentioned Fallout: New Vegas as a counterexample exactly because of this.
Bioware actually did this in NWN? Because they certainly didn't do it in any of their games I've played except for DAO, where there was the coercion skill to influence plot outcomes. I've often said I want my persuasion skills back, but since if they were there I'd always takes them, a game that simply assumes that I have them works for me. I suspect "everyone takes them anyway" was the main reason why they did away with them, not understanding that the presence of a choice is important even if almost nobody takes it.
BTW, DAI gives you a choice with the Inquisition perks. The problem with that is those are not part of your character. I have criticized that.
So....for me this problem is not critical, but I understand where you're coming from and I agree that more integration between the way we build our characters and the story is extremely desirable. A prerequisite for that is that the skill system is extended beyond the combat again. Bioware would have to account for different levels in the plot-affecting skills though, and that makes things more complicated. I suspect they felt they had to reduce complexity here in order to be able to implement more meaningful decisions.
It is not like you have the chance to refuse becoming a Grey Warden in DA:O, not like you can say: sorry, but I won't go to Ostagar, I won't drink that blood, I won't go to the tower, but I fight by Duncen's side...
The Inquisitor is a symbol, Giselle pretty much shoves that in your face, but what you do with that is up to you.
Did you have the option in DA:O to NOT use one of the treaties? To not convince someone to side with you? Would these people give a damn about you if you didn't have the scar, oh, I mean treaties? Nah, Orzamar wouldn't even let you in if you didn't have the treaties forcing them. It is the exact same thing.
DAO story is the same as DA:I but with some flavors.
Just take a look at the choices in the Keep and for example what happen to Connor or remember when you spoil the Sacred Ashes Wynne and Lelianna turn on you.
You could kill your companions over a choice.
Yes, unfortunally Bioware didn't kept our choices about killing companions...
But the point is that for a lot of people, DA:I didn't let them have enough choices and that they don't have some impact in the end.
If you maipulated enough people during DAO, you could end up being king, that's quite something for someone who started as mere grey warden.
That's what in mean to have different flavor in an c-rpg while DA:I offer just one and only kind of flavor : an inquisitor who serve/help other and not rule over them for example.
You can not kill them, but you can part ways with them. You can alter them, that is making them different.
Not as visible as in: there, dead, your hands are all bloody... but you still influence their personality and choices a great deal.
I look at my game, the one my husband plays, the one my friend and his wife plays, and the characters and their story is different. They still get to the same checkpoints, but in rather different ways. The Leliana in one is not the same as in the other. She changed based on decisions we make. She doesn't announce it, but the change is there. It is a reaction to the decisions you made.
I do wish the characters would leave you on their own premis and would rely less on you. I do agree to that.
I do wish the characters would leave you on their own premis and would rely less on you. I do agree to that.
It was said they can leave if they their approval rating becomes too low. I wonder: did that happen in anyone's game or is this another instance of "we set the thresholds so low that they're meaningless" (another, because ME3 did this with the war assets and their unlocking of different endings - basically you had to try really hard to be locked out of anything except the scene they wanted nobody to see, and that, of course, defeats the point)
Retour en haut