272 réponses à ce sujet

[lynroy]

It's easy to say it like that when you over simplify every thing.

[Ieldra]

@Deepsetsoul:

So...who you put on the throne, who you ally with, or whether or not you sabotage the genophage is not part of the story? Doesn't feel that way to me.

 

It appears that you are criticizing the fact that the story has a fixed framework. I'll tell you something: every story has a fixed framework. Even Skyrim's. You are the last Dragonborn and you save the world by killing Alduin. There as here, the only thing you can do about this framework is to ignore it and play through things that don't have anything to do with it, but you can't change it, and the only difference between DAI and Skyrim in that regard is that Skyrim offers you more if you want to ignore the main plot while DAI is more focused on it and presents it way better than the side content. 

[ChaosMarky]

@Deepsetsoul:

So...who you put on the throne, who you ally with, or whether or not you sabotage the genophage is not part of the story? Doesn't feel that way to me.

 

It appears that you are criticizing the fact that the story has a fixed framework. I'll tell you something: every story has a fixed framework. Even Skyrim's. You are the last Dragonborn and you save the world by killing Alduin. There as here, the only thing you can do about this framework is to ignore it and play through things that don't have anything to do with it, but you can't change it, and the only difference between DAI and Skyrim in that regard is that Skyrim offers you more if you want to ignore the main plot while DAI is more focused on it and presents it way better than the side content. 

 

Bioware DID admit they focus on making story-driven games rather than sandbox, action, or any other genre. Its no surprise they prioritize it over everything else.

 

 

Product differentiation.

[Ieldra]

I wasn't criticizing, ChaosMarky. I was explaining. I think DAI's combination of a big world you can explore with a strong focus on the main plot paid off spectacularly.

 

However, I also understand the desire for more meaningful side content. I guess that's only natural since we're used to the standards set by the main plot and would like to see the same standards used everywhere. It's not realistic to expect that, but I do hope for some DLC.

[ChaosMarky]

I wasn't criticizing, ChaosMarky. I was explaining. I think DAI's combination of a big world you can explore with a strong focus on the main plot paid off spectacularly.

 

However, I also understand the desire for more meaningful side content. I guess that's only natural since we're used to the standards set by the main plot and would like to see the same standards used everywhere. It's not realistic to expect that, but I do hope for some DLC.

 

Hmm.. Sorry, my tone must've came out wrong,

 

I should note: i actually agree with your previous assessment and was actually enforcing your statement using bioware's long standing philosophy.

[xkg]

It all depends on what you are looking for in RPG game. For me it is mechanics and my character building that is more important.

My main gaming genre is strategy games and I always loved simulations of any kind.In the past I spent hundred of hours playing games like Sim Ants, Sim Tower, all UFO games. Then I got into Laser squad, Jagged Alliance and those were blast.

 

So for me, the best experience is through messing with my characters and using them in the game. For every one it is different but when it comes to cRPGs I prefer tactical sub genre e.g. Jagged Galliance, Silent Storm, Hammer&Sickle, Brigade E5, 7.62 High Calibre, UFO:Afterlight.

 

When it comes to storytelling RPGs, once again the rules are more important afaic. Great rules fuelling great mechanics is what I am after in those games. Story, decisions etc are only a side dish, no matter how bad I am going to like the game if the complex mechanics make up for it. But the other way around, nope. Games with huge stories coupled with minimum character building, I don't treat them as RPGs, for example Mass Effect had many great things, it was storytelling game with TPS shooter mechanics and RPG elements. Mass Effect 2 was very boring shooter, there was nothing in this game for me. So even disastrous DA2 is IMO far far better than ME2.

 

DAO wasn't all that great on mechanics aspect either, but its rules were bearable. Together with interesting story(read: not too much politics and personal stories which are boring as hell) and fun gameplay and combat it produced very good game.

 

DAI .... ehhh, 0 excitement about it. Seems like there is not much for me in it. Waiting for some huge deal to play it.

I had to choose between two borked (IMO) games from EA - DA:I and SIMS 4.

No matter how weird it may sound, Sims 4 is closer to me in terms of roleplaying, so I am going to go with this one.

[Corto81]

 

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.

 

Okay, this is gonna be a long post...

 

First of all, I disagree, I think DA:I is a very mediocre RPG, but a good/very good game.

 

Now to elaborate...

(I wrote some of this in another post on these boards, if someone's reading me repeating myself, I apologize)

To start with, in order for a game to be a truly deep RPG, you need massive amounts of immersion, you need to be able to get lost in a believable, "real" world and you need to be able to identify with your character, AND to shape that character as much as possible to your liking.

 

There are different types of RPGs, but they all shine at something that makes it immersive and deep.

 

DA:O had a great story (the Landsmeet/Loghain one, not the Archdemon one... that was a just a plot device for the "real" story... Everything past Landsmeet was like an epilogue, with certain decisions being made - but the main antagonist - Loghain - has been dealt with one way or another), decent freedom in shaping your character class (DW warrior? Low Magic, high CON mage? Why not, up to you), it had old-school RP non-combat elements (pickpocketing, persuasion, intimidation, etc.), it had deep, complex, believable, non-stereotyped companions, who could all abandon you/die according to their convictions, it had a decent-sized world with open spaces and big dungeons (nothing like the claustrophobic DA2), etc.

 

Oh, and your actual choices in the events getting to the Archdemon... Matter. Perhaps it isn't so relevant in who helps you etc., but all the stories are well presented, and you genuinely care how the characters end up, be it Connor, or the Elves, or the Mages, etc.

Perhaps most importantly, with Origins, it gave your character a background and you knew his/hers motivation before you ever start "adventuring".

 

Skyrim, on the other hand, lets you fully design your character how you want, create any "class" according to your liking, and more importantly, gives you a huge, REACTIVE world for you to get lost in. The main story is just a there to hold your ladder (so to say) while you paint whatever you like.

FWIW, some of the quest-lines and characters are actually rather interesting and well-written (Dark Brotherhood, for example, had me more invested in it than anything in DA2, even DA:I).

You can pickpocket, rob, interact with any object, guards react to you, people react to you, people move and walk and talk, have jobs, sleep, there's a day-night cycle, etc.

 

Skyrim doesn't change the formula of earlier TES games. It improves on it. It's trying to have better sales by being a better RPG.

It never once strays away from what they intended to produce when they started.

 

Dark Souls gives you a dead or dying world, but a "real" one, and a character which, again, you build anyway you like - even if the character is an empty shell.

It thrives on a horror-based exploration and a world that entirely consumes you, and with just your footsteps and the ambient sounds (no music) it really succeeds in drawing you into in.

When you finally get the story and all its characters, it's glorious in its tragedy. From Iron Tarkus to the Last Witch of Izalith to Artorius and Sif, Ornstein and Smaugh, Raime and Alonne, it's fantastically done and written.

Of course, the biggest part of the game is combat, but the game(s) got to cult status because they were excellent at what they did, even if they started out "small".

The PvP end-game aspect certainly doesn't hurt, it let you show off your (unique) character and it is still huge, especially in the latest game (DkS2).

 

The formula didn't change from Demons Souls to Dark Souls or DkS2, nor will it change for Bloodborne.

 

Witcher gives you a set character - but that character has more freedom to his choices and the consequences are real and influence the world more than anything in DA:I, for example.

Again, even with swords only, you have more freedom in creating a build than in DA:I.

And again, the world is alive and reacts to you. People move and work, sleep and run for cover if it rains, guards react to you if you have unsheathe your weapons, etc.

The world is alive and dark and dangerous and you just happen to be in it.

Also, minor gripe, but in Witcher, when characters are taken to prison and tortured - in that brutal medieval world - they're stripped and the women are likely raped.

In DA:I, Leliana's year in prison changed nothing to her armor/clothing. I mean, yes it's minor, but to me, it's like... Either do that scene properly, or don't do it at all.

 

 

And now to DA:I.

 

First the character.

 

You have no background. Personally, I never identified with the Inquisition nor did I for once think an organization based around religion was necessary to fight Corypheus.

It all felt lousily presented, like they had no idea how to introduce the story after they scratched Hawke as the new Shep. (I think it's fairly obvious they intended for Hawke to be DA's Shep).

This is of course, up to each individual, but I'm not giving an A grade on the story just because of their reputation.

Once I scratched the surface, I found the story very uninspired and the main antagonist to be somewhat of a joke.

It's somewhat redeemed by Morrigan and Flemeth, who - in half the game and 2 scenes, respectively - completely pound into dust any and all other characters, leaders or companions in Inquisition.

 

Your freedom in creating and customizing your class had been heavily limited.

No stats on level-up, weapon-locked classes, no weapon-switching in combat (this is neither logical nor tactical), limited spell slots (your character apparently has only room in his brain for 8 spells), and while this isn't strictly RP-related, the gimpy AI behavior makes me not take the companions seriously - you have to babysit the dumb AI for every 3 seconds in any fight slightly more difficult).

You can't walk through the world (on PC), you always run.

You cannot pickpocket or intimidate or persuade.

 

Your choices are limited and some are badly presented (WInter Palace plot... there are choices, but why exactly would you care who ruled in the end, I talked to Celene, Gaspar and Fiona exactly once in my life - I honestly couldn't care less who rules there... Plot is GOOD, but you're never given reason to care - assuming you haven't read the books, you simply don't know who these people are - and hence, it's very hard to care for them).

 

I did enjoy some sentencing moments, though the funny ones definitely shone over the "serious" ones (goat-chucking Avarr and the dead body in the box were genuinely funny, I though).

 

The warroom felt very... Assassin's Creed like-missions, and the gathering flags etc. felt very Ubisoft as well.

Whether someone liked it or not, I don't see what it had to do with role-playing.

 

And then the world.

 

Like I said earlier, an open world game should have a living world in which you just happen to exist.

Inquisition's world, while big and beautiful, feels DEAD. Actually, it feels NOT REAL. It feels like a playground where everything is in place for you do what you do, a theme park. A WoW-world, if you will.

Walk around Val Royeaux or Skyhold. Count how many NPCs move or walk or talk.
There're no day-night cycles. Everyone just stands eternally in one spots and does nothing.
If an NPC is in the doorway, your super leader Inquisitor can't get past them because... They be like that, yo?

There are invisible walls and cut-off points in zones. How is it immersive when I'm exploring, I come to an artificial obstacle in the world, then I have to go to the Warroom and activate the operation - but I don't have enough power, so I gotta go grind me some power first?

Further more, while I LOVED the direction they took with trying to be more open-world, it wasn't really done properly.

An open world game shouldn't punish you for going somewhere you "weren't intended to go". It shouldn't have level-locked loot.

I kill a lvl 15 mob on my lvl 11 toon just to have min-lvl 16 drop? Whose idea was that?
Similarly, if you go somewhere "you weren't intended to go first", and you go back to a zone, you'll find you're completely overleveled it and that the content is trivial and you just either rush through it - or skip it entirely.

 

This is stuff that I don't mind in a semi-linear, party-based, story-driven game like DA:O.

But if you do an open world, it's gotta be done right to feel real and deep.

 

My point is, DA:O had ALL the elements right. In order to make a BETTER RPG, all Bioware had to do was improve the existing formula.

Unlike Bethesda etc., they re-invented the wheel (twice now) and are sacrificing certain elements (mostly in the roleplaying and tactical combat areas) in order to cater more to a larger audience.

 

They intentionally went for more sales by appealing more to the "casual" crowd (by casual I mean people who aren't RPGamers, but generally people who get their hands on certain games and play it out without ever getting to deep into it - your average GTA/CoD gamer, if you will) and stepping away from the RPG core that made them big in the first place.

 

At the same time, Bethesda, From, CDPR etc... Are trying to sell more by actually making RPGs.

They stick to their formulas and they are succeeding in it.

 

The market for RPGs is still here and living and, honestly, it's bigger than ever.
You got people chucking money at Pillars of Eternity and Numenora, Divinity:Original Sin was hugely successful, Dark Souls 2 was a  smash hit, Witcher 3 is coming up, so is Bloodborne, etc.

Skyrim, Witcher 2, Dark Souls, they all made DA2 (all came out in 2011) look like a messy, rushed game from a greedy publisher.

 

The market isn't making Bioware step away from its old formula or making it go for more action/arcade combat or gimping out your RP elements.

They're doing it themselves.

 

...

So to sum up, no, I don't think the role-playing elements are very deep in DA:I, and I think it's mediocre in that department.

And I don't think I'm wrong if I say the majority of the stuff above is fact, and a minor bit is opinion-based.

 

I still think it's a 7.5/10 game, I don't regret spending money it, I got a good, enjoyable 80 hours out of it.

 

It's a very good game. But not a good role-playing game.

[Kage]

Nice post OP.

I agree, this game really lets me roleplay, and that is one of the most important things for me in a RPG. In the Witcher I cant, the personality is already defined, I can just take some decisions, but not forge my character's personality.

 

I am just starting the game, less than 30 hours in it, and I have already roleplayed a lot defining who my character is: a female mage elf, dalish and proud of it, who does not believe in Andraste and does not believe she was chosen, but merely saved by luck, who approaches conflict with a peaceful attitude, but without being naive, and being very resolutive.

 

I have talked with many people, some even NPCs without much importance, and reflected my personality. I have also chosen what approach I want in the war table missions, depending on what my character would do. I have chosen to side with mages, since I can understand them better being a mage myself.

 

I do not care if my decisions do not matter at the end because the story will go to the same place either way. What I am doing is defining my character, who she is, and in that is where I get the value out of the decisions I am making.

[Dean_the_Young]

It's not a question of forced morals since you can continuously express a desire for the Chantry to go away. It's more that you the Inquisitor don't have the power to declare something like that, and the other important members of the Inquisition won't go along with it anyway.

 

When I see people complain about how they have no legitimate role-playing opportunities because they can't do anything they want, I wonder if they'd apply the same standard to, say, romances.

 

Does the fact that you can not romance Scout Harding somehow disprove a claim that DAI has any romances? Does the existence of quests where no combat is required somehow disprove a point that combat is an overwhelming requirement of the game and for story progress?

 

Of course not- because such an argument rests on fallacy.

[Ieldra]

@Corto:

i concede some of your points, but they're mostly irrelevant to the point I wanted to make since they focus on aspects that don't touch the roleplaying dimension. Where they do, here's my take on it:

 

The character

 

You actually do have a background. it's unfortunate that you have to consult the Codex to read about it, but you do. As for the connection to the Inquisition, I was in the same position as you when i started the game, as was my character. Initially, closing the Breach was nothing more than a necessity for my own survival. Your mark does kill you, remember? Apart from that, in a roleplaying game, to make you care about what happens is at least in part YOUR task. Or would you prefer that the game tells you why you should care? It doesn't and that is GOOD! In the past, I have often criticized Bioware for being too heavy-handed in their storytelling, and that they should just tell the story and let me make up my mind about things. In DAI, they let the events and the characters speak for themselves. Perhaps it's that what you experience as "no connection", but I feel it as "no prescribed connection" and I like it that way.

 

As I see, it is your task as a roleplayer to make the Inquisition yours. The game gives you options to say what you think about Andrasteanism and about religion, in your inauguration speech at Skyhold you can tell the world what you want the Inquisition to be, within some contraints, and while you can't influence what people believe about you, you can pretty much say it's all BS and you just like the power it gives you if you want.

 

In DAO, you have to join the Wardens, and you actually have fewer options to reject the ideas behind them and the way they operate than you have towards the Inquisition in DAI, where you maybe can't reject it altogether, but you can shape it into something that suits you more.

 

In the end, I looked at what I had done in the game, and found the Inquisition was mine and my character was at home in what she had built. It won't work the same way for everyone of course, but the game makes it possible, and like DAO, it was mainly through what I did in the secondary plots that this worked. Corypheus/The Archdemon is a plot device, something that exists as a framework for the tapestry of smaller stories that give you the opportunity to express who your character is. I concede that DAO had more secondary plots - Redcliffe, the Sacred Ashes, the Circle, the Elf/Werewolf problem, Orzammar. I have criticized DAI for lacking at least one more major mission, but I do make more decisions which are meaningful in DAI's story arc than I do in DAO's. If you take their combined impact, DAI wins. It's as if in DAO, you could come to lead the Wardens and shape their policy. 

[Ieldra]

I do not care if my decisions do not matter at the end because the story will go to the same place either way. What I am doing is defining my character, who she is, and in that is where I get the value out of the decisions I am making.

Yes, strictly spoken, real impact should not matter for defining who you are. However, in-world impact is a way for the game to acknowledge your decision, even if it's just in small ways, and give you the feeling that you matter. For instance, if you say you're not the Herald in the first conversation on this topic, Cassandra later refers to that and asks if that also means you don't believe in the Maker. It's just a little thing, but it's enough that you don't feel you have your say but the game ignores it from now on. Any impact you have anchors you within the fictional world, and that's as important as defining who you are. Not everything has to result in visible changes, even less in permanent changes that affect future games, but in general you should feel that your decisions are acknowledged by the story, DAI does that mostly well.

[Silcron]

I just wish they had imitated SWToR more. Don't get me wrong, I like the roleplaying oportunities but the areas could use with a narrative of their own, like in swtor every planet has its own campaign, even with different missions to go through depending on your choices, and apart from that even chain quests that do the same to an extent, the Revanite cult in Dromund Kaas comes to mind. So far in DAI the best area in this regard is Crestwood, and the temple area, I don't think that one needs more, going there to investage about the shards is enough.

That's what I'm missing from the game, more narrative driven missions. Most of it is doing x to gain power to unlock new areas or hte next main story mission.

I know many people haven't played swtor, but it's just that i'd like to point out that bioware has done open areas in a game before, and better (hell, i enjoyed more a 10 minute parkour section to get a datacron than trying to get that shard on hte pillar near the dragon in the hinterlands, so even in such minor things as jumping sections swtor wins)

Edit: i don't think i made the link to this thread clear enough. I dont just want more narrative on the areas on dai, or future da games, i want the roleplaying opportunities they gave me in swtor. The best example being the revanite cult, again. A sith tells you to infiltrate it so you can learn who the leader is so they can kill him, you can do that, or join the cult and tell him the leader is his master, you can also decide if you give away Revan's mask or keep it (or at least what htey think is the real mask, not sure if its the real thing as Revan has it himself). That's what i was refering to.

[Silcron]

Btw there's more as to why that quest chain is so good, even from a roleplaying perspective, i can explain further if someone's interested or they think i need to clarify more, but i got to go now. Sorry

[Ieldra]

@Silcron:

Indeed, more content like that is always desirable, and some maps in DAI could do with some more opportunities to make meaningful decisions and their own somewhat complex plots. I don't think there's any in the Hissing Wastes, for instance, Neither in the Oasis. Generally, everything that isn't part of the main plot or of character arcs is sparse in that regard. Given the size of DAI, I am hesitant to count this as a flaw, but yes, more content like that would significantly improve the game.

[mickey111]

 

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? 

 

1. see group of enemies

2. send sword and board warrior person for the enemies to gang bang like starving wolves to a pig

3. order your two archers to attack weakest enemy in mob

4. have my mage keep the sword and board warrior alive with healing and shield and stuff

5. is enemy mob dead?

Y. Congratulations! you are victorious!      

N. repeat 2-4

 

So, there are at least 5 *meaningful* decisions I make in this game, and what does it say about me? I guess I'm just a very simple tactician, and that Biowares encounter design people need to mix it up a bit because I found the game mind-numbingly BORING to play. When I'm BORED, I start caring less about the characters and the plot and end up distracted, thinking about more fun and useful things to do with my time

[AshesEleven]

@Silcron:

Indeed, more content like that is always desirable, and some maps in DAI could do with some more opportunities to make meaningful decisions and their own somewhat complex plots. I don't think there's any in the Hissing Wastes, for instance, Neither in the Oasis. Generally, everything that isn't part of the main plot or of character arcs is sparse in that regard. Given the size of DAI, I am hesitant to count this as a flaw, but yes, more content like that would significantly improve the game.

 

Yeah, I'd argue it's not a flaw, but it would be appreciated to have more focused and meaningful story lines for each zone.  I like that I can just wander around and do things my own way, but I'd also like there to be a main quest.

[Medhia_Nox]

@xkg:  It's interesting to me that people want to be able to claim a type of ownership over everything. 

 

You state very clearly that some of your favorite games have nothing to do with roleplaying - and you say you're main interest is really in character building - but you feel like your critiques on something like DA:I are totally valid.

 

This is like a chemist making sweeping statements about biology.  Yes, they're both scientists - but there is a very real reason why it's not just "science" and chemists and biologists study different fields. 

 

I'd really like people who aren't into everything a RPG is - to be clear about that instead of making sweeping generalizations about "this RPG sucks" when what you really mean is "what I like about RPGs - character building - sucks in this game".  There's a HUGE difference.

 

For me - character building is about 20% of what makes an RPG an RPG - and in truth, story building is far FAR more interesting to me and my character than +1 to Hit.  

 

Story w/Agency + Mechanics = RPG.  Not "just story" or "just mechanics" (though I will argue that a story with agency but no mechanics is far more of an RPG than a game with just mechanics).

 

NOTE:  I love RTS and Simulation games as well.  But I don't lump them all together and expect the same out of all of them.

[mickey111]

@xkg:  It's interesting to me that people want to be able to claim a type of ownership over everything. 

 

You state very clearly that some of your favorite games have nothing to do with roleplaying - and you say you're main interest is really in character building - but you feel like your critiques on something like DA:I are totally valid.

 

This is like a chemist making sweeping statements about biology.  Yes, they're both scientists - but there is a very real reason why it's not just "science" and chemists and biologists study different fields. 

 

I'd really like people who aren't into everything a RPG is - to be clear about that instead of making sweeping generalizations about "this RPG sucks" when what you really mean is "what I like about RPGs - character building - sucks in this game".  There's a HUGE difference.

 

For me - character building is about 20% of what makes an RPG an RPG - and in truth, story building is far FAR more interesting to me and my character than +1 to Hit.  

 

Story w/Agency + Mechanics = RPG.  Not "just story" or "just mechanics" (though I will argue that a story with agency but no mechanics is far more of an RPG than a game with just mechanics).

 

NOTE:  I love RTS and Simulation games as well.  But I don't lump them all together and expect the same out of all of them.

 

I think we should agree to consider biowares RPGs a new genre called interactive fiction and be done with it already. Because purely mechanical RPGs came first. By about 20-30 years before biowares kind of game, the personality building genre or virtual fictional persona in an imaginary world genre or whatever you call it. 

 

I don't care much what people name it, but I like for the original meaning of lables and words to be specific and unchanged because really what's wrong with referring to grouping numbers based gameplay as "RPG" and other stuff as some other acronym? there is no shame in it. 

[Viidicus]

@xkg:  It's interesting to me that people want to be able to claim a type of ownership over everything. 

 

You state very clearly that some of your favorite games have nothing to do with roleplaying - and you say you're main interest is really in character building - but you feel like your critiques on something like DA:I are totally valid.

 

This is like a chemist making sweeping statements about biology.  Yes, they're both scientists - but there is a very real reason why it's not just "science" and chemists and biologists study different fields. 

 

I'd really like people who aren't into everything a RPG is - to be clear about that instead of making sweeping generalizations about "this RPG sucks" when what you really mean is "what I like about RPGs - character building - sucks in this game".  There's a HUGE difference.

 

For me - character building is about 20% of what makes an RPG an RPG - and in truth, story building is far FAR more interesting to me and my character than +1 to Hit.  

 

Story w/Agency + Mechanics = RPG.  Not "just story" or "just mechanics" (though I will argue that a story with agency but no mechanics is far more of an RPG than a game with just mechanics).

 

NOTE:  I love RTS and Simulation games as well.  But I don't lump them all together and expect the same out of all of them.

 

 

theyre both equally as important and a good RPG has both, a strong story with agency + mechanics and the ability to build your character which is something bioware has been dumbing down with each sequel.

 

The stories are strong but everything else is just been neutered - i laughed when i saw the skill trees in dai  

[Al Foley]

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.

Brought a tear to me eye. 

[Al Foley]

I think we should agree to consider biowares RPGs a new genre called interactive fiction and be done with it already. Because purely mechanical RPGs came first. By about 20-30 years before biowares kind of game, the personality building genre or virtual fictional persona in an imaginary world genre or whatever you call it. 

 

I don't care much what people name it, but I like for the original meaning of lables and words to be specific and unchanged because really what's wrong with referring to grouping numbers based gameplay as "RPG" and other stuff as some other acronym? there is no shame in it. 

I'll second this, maybe going to quibble over the exact word choice but I have been to one of my friends and in my head and my blog...when I do blog about the subject...refer to BioWare games as a 'BioWare RPG' or 'RPG in the BioWare style'.  Because even though I have only played one other major RPG franchise (Elder Scrolls) I know enough about looking through the genre and stuff to know that BioWare games, and even recent BioWare games for that matter, are distinctly different.  I would say this began about ME/DA2 since really...

[JeffZero]

, Ieldra.

For me the customization aspect is barely even decoration, so I'm pleased DAI centered its resources on what you and I jointly consider the heart of roleplaying.

[Corto81]

@Corto:

i concede some of your points, but they're mostly irrelevant to the point I wanted to make since they focus on aspects that don't touch the roleplaying dimension. Where they do, here's my take on it:

 

The character

 

You actually do have a background. it's unfortunate that you have to consult the Codex to read about it, but you do. As for the connection to the Inquisition, I was in the same position as you when i started the game, as was my character. Initially, closing the Breach was nothing more than a necessity for my own survival. Your mark does kill you, remember? Apart from that, in a roleplaying game, to make you care about what happens is at least in part YOUR task. Or would you prefer that the game tells you why you should care? It doesn't and that is GOOD! In the past, I have often criticized Bioware for being too heavy-handed in their storytelling, and that they should just tell the story and let me make up my mind about things. In DAI, they let the events and the characters speak for themselves. Perhaps it's that what you experience as "no connection", but I feel it as "no prescribed connection" and I like it that way.

 

As I see, it is your task as a roleplayer to make the Inquisition yours. The game gives you options to say what you think about Andrasteanism and about religion, in your inauguration speech at Skyhold you can tell the world what you want the Inquisition to be, within some contraints, and while you can't influence what people believe about you, you can pretty much say it's all BS and you just like the power it gives you if you want.

 

 

I don't think you can focus on one aspect of role-playing, and that being the one how you saw the story etc., meaning the most subjective one and opinion-based, and ignore the rest.

 

And "the rest", in this case, is the factual part about less and less RP elements in the game and how it tries to imitate certain others stuff from other games... but misses the point WHY that stuff works in a different game.

 

Regarding your point, no, I don't think my character should make up motivations for him and reasons for him to do stuff. I should be able to react to events and try to prevent events I don't like that might be coming, but I shouldn't really make up for shoddy presentation and make up my own reasons as to why my character should feel like the Inquisition is either needed or wanted, or why he should be a part of it.

I'm never given to choice to lump up all the religious zealots and disband the Chantry and tell them they're all being ridiculous.

Best I get is "let them believe cos they're too uneducated to understand why you think there's no God".

But I can't actually do anything with it. 

My character couldn't do even remotely what I wanted him, he was always artificially pigeon-holed into certain situations, regardless of what my actual response in the conversation was.

 

Also, I realize my character has a "sort off" background, but that takes me back to what I was saying earlier, it's so awkwardly and clumsily presented it may as well not even be there.

It's MY characters. Why is it too much to expect that I know stuff about him or her like in DA:O, instead of reading up in the codex.

 

I never said the game should "tell me" why I should care. In DA:I it feels unconvincing and forced and well, made-up.

In the very beginning, you being the only suspect in the murder of the Divine, in what is suppose to be a brutal, dark, dangerous, medieval world, instead of being tortured and killed, you're taken on a stroll with a high-ranking officer.

At that point, they don't even know what your green hand does. It's a world of magic and dragons, maybe it's just some illusion magic?

The song after Haven? A big number of people thought it was great, but to me, it felt contrived and artificial and forced.

Ostagar battle cut scene just makes it look a bit lame, IMO.

 

But again, point is, you're speaking about the story and choices (which aren't even strong, but it's subjective), while completely ignoring factual information about the cut-down RP elements.

[Ieldra]

To everyone who says rpgs have always been defined by their mechanics:

 

You are mistaking the rules for the game. I've been a tabletop roleplayer and game master since the early 1980s, and I can tell you from experience that if the characters can't act meaningfully within the framework you present to them, there is nothing you can do with the mechanics to save your campaign. It will simply fail. The rules exist to serve the story, and if they get in the way you ignore or change them. I know not everyone thinks the same way - min/maxers and rules lawyers usually don't stay long in my campaigns - but it's a philosophy Bioware has apparently adopted, and it's not something new. Tabletop roleplayers have done this since the genre exists, and only in video games had it been forgotten because computers aren't good with stuff that can't be captured by rules.

 

Yes, you do need mechanisms that define what you can and can't do. But they need not be overly complex to serve the story. Personally, I would indeed prefer a better integration of both dimensions, like FO:NV did it and I think what DAI does is not ideal, but I also think Bioware focuses on the more important dimension.

 

Edit:

BTW, the ruleset of FO:NV is actually not very complex. You have attributes, skills and perks with some linear dependency, there's really not much there for players who derive their fun from optimizing character builds. What makes FO:NV extraordinary is how it uses those mechanics to influence the storytelling dimension. It makes for a more natural experience, but it can also be limiting for the storyteller: if you want to present a meaningful decision to the player, but he's made a character who is unable to make that decision, for instance, by being too stupid to understand the problem, you have a problem. Thus, Bioware goes and simply presupposes you have the skills to make meaningful decisions as the leader of the Inquisition. Because it's needed for the story, you do not have the freedom to be overly stupid. Or overly evil, at that. If you don't like that, you don't just want a different game - you want a different story and DAI is not for you. it's just like I tell my players which kinds of characters are possible when starting a new campaign.

 

Edit2:

Some of the Inquisition perks try to reestablish such a connection, and they make it possible, for instance, to play a more or less educated character. That does influence the storytelling dimension, and where it does, the effects can be drastic. The problem with that is that an Inquisition perk isn't perceived as a part of your character, even if technically there is no difference. 

[Medhia_Nox]

Have to totally agree with Ieldra on rpgs. 

 

The mechanics of Red Box D&D were not what D&D was "about" even then (at least to my group).  We used those numbers and "crunch" to tell a story. 

It's like saying a book is "about" the letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters in it.

 

No it isn't - not at all. It's how those "letters, words, sentences, paragraphs and chapters" come together to make a novel (or essay, short story, poem, etc).  

 

Yes, the mechanics can be a LOT of fun - and, they're the easiest thing about an RPG to grasp.  Funny that people think Bioware dumbs down mechanics... when I think mechanics dumb down RPGs.

 

Yes, mechanics are a great part of character building - and good mechanics can help enhance a story.  If "this" were the argument - I could find common ground.  But DA:I just gets out of the way of the story and doesn't provide a great deal of mechanics.  So the mechanics are not hindering the story - they're simply slim.  

 

Mechanics are the literal, factual part of a game...easy to grasp and manipulate - I can see their appeal.  

 

Anyone can write well - not everyone can write a novel well.