272 réponses à ce sujet

[Kage]

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.

 

Not only that, I am roleplaying a dalish elf that does not believe in the Maker, nor being the herald, nor being chosen or anything, and the consistency of the main story is so well done so far, that it seems I am watching a movie. It is just awesome.

 

Spoilers up to getting to Skyhold ahead:

Spoiler

Cassandra started saying that to me too, but then also a couple of conversations with Mother Giselle. And after the attack of the Elder One to Haven, everyone was starting to believe that maybe you are indeed chosen (too much luck if not), and I still stayed saying I am not chosen nor herald, and all the conversations made sense, even Mother Giselle used the faith of everybody in the song to tell you later "you might not believe it, but the rest do believe it and that's important" or something like that. Very emotional moment. And also, when I accepted being the Inquisitor, I chose the elf special option, and I got to say that I will be an ambassador between humans and elves, to inspire people and defeat this evil. Without saying anything about being holy, nor chosen.

 

It was just awesome. I just cannot wait to start a second playthrough with a human templar who fanaticly believes he is the chosen holy one from the start. Its going to be equally epic!

[Ieldra]

Please name one instance outside of DA:I (which is noticably better, which ill credit bioware for) where your decisions in a bioware game made a difference outside of the cutscene that plays at the end of the game.

Every time you choose to recruit or not recruit a companion? Or choose to do something that drives one away, or not? Or that makes you lose considerable war assets in ME3 which may result in your preferred ending not being available? Or that decision in DA2's Act I that makes different sidequests appear in Act II? DAI has a fork in the main plot and several other improvements to the decision system, but you can't say there weren't any decisions that made a difference within the game in earlier games.

[theluc76]

Yes AshesEleven, its a pointless discussion to have with me,  a fact is a fact. DAI may be a good game but its not an RPG, why that Inquisitor you play is stuck with that Warhammer Fantasy Witch Hunter vibe. Just like MMOs its the gear your character wear that changes your attributes, its not the player who teaks it as the character evolve. There is good things about the game but not enough to justify me paying or even playing it.

 

 The story, weak or not its the way its told, the presentation, the delivery and all those in between as usual BioWare did  a great job.

 

 Companions, again everything for everyone, again great job done.

 

 Large areas, fine with me, its a cool add on, some big empty spots, was it to accommodate more players ?

 

 Graphics, lots of folks put a priority on that, I think the game looks stunning, thanks to Frostbite3.

 

 Voiced protagonist, not new as it was done in DA2 despite hardcore fans not wanting it at the time, purely optional. I dont mind it really, just make it feel more like a movie.

 

 The war table, map or research center, nothing new there but presentation is so good its looks like a feature without being one.

 

 Game play, well plays like a MMO which you can pause for potions.

 

 Actual content, well its lacking even with gazillions of mini quest to gain resources or items it just seem not meaningful. Again they give lots of crafting materials just like a MMO.

 

 Crafting, ok its nice to have

 

 No Mods, to put it simply, its EA

 

 RPG elements, races, classes and specialization for chosen class

 

 Missing RPG elements, no player character development, no companion development, no freedom of being good or bad, missing classes, lore elements missing, no absolute control over player character or companions

[mickey111]

DAIs problemn is that it's too big for it's own good because it has more empty space than worthwile content. If it were like Baldurs Gate 2 in that it were chock full of main quests, each of which gets you to know the world better and each of which are big enough that they could have been expanded into a much larger story (and a few of them actually did get that treatment, see class faction quests), would people complain so loudly about too much filler?

[Lebanese Dude]

DAIs problemn is that it's too big for it's own good because it has more empty space than worthwile content. If it were like Baldurs Gate 2 in that it were chock full of main quests, each of which gets you to know the world better and each of which are big enough that they could have been expanded into a much larger story (and a few of them actually did get that treatment, see class faction quests), would people complain so loudly about too much filler?

Writing hasn't evolved much in the last 10 years. 

 

Visuals and dynamic programming have.

 

If you want a crappy-looking game with Pulitzer writing quality and tons of contextual character divergence, play a text-based or actual pen and paper game.

 

That's essentially what BG2 looks like to me right now, given it is considered the best thing ever made (apparently).

Unfortunately people do like the shiny, so you're going to see beautiful environments, dynamic worlds, voiced characters, and all the other things you consider "fluff"  take equal priority to stuffing as much writing content as possible.

[mickey111]

Baldurs Gate was far from pulitzer, but it wasn't shallow. 3 minute "missions" are shallow. Why are they 3 minutes long and shallow? Because they want to be like skyrim. Better story tellers than Bioware couldn't tell a good story in that short amount of time. I'm sure they have some exceptions to the normal 3 minute quests, but I'm not going to go off the beaten path of the main plat to find them while I have an endless backlog of games and TV shows and movies and books to occupy my time

[Lebanese Dude]

Baldurs Gate was far from pulitzer, but it wasn't shallow. 3 minute "missions" are shallow. Why are they 3 minutes long and shallow? Because they want to be like skyrim. Better story tellers than Bioware couldn't tell a good story in that short amount of time. I'm sure they have some exceptions to the normal 3 minute quests, but I'm not going to go off the beaten path of the main plat to find them while I have an endless backlog of games and TV shows and movies and books to occupy my time

 

 

Are you comparing the resources needed to create BG2's character and main plot to those of DAI?

That would...frankly...be laughable.

[herkles]

I highly suspect that people would hate my favorite table-top rpg system: FATE. This is a system without attriubtes at all. You have skills. The big thing are your aspects and fate points. fate points allow you to alter scenes, re-roll dice and generally improve things. How it works is thusly.

 

lets say I have an aspect called "mage firebrand" now I could use that aspect for postive, speaking for the cause of mages or perhaps knowing where some other mage rebels are. However I could be tempted with a fate point when I am dealing with a templar/chantry sister that we need to be diplomatic with. I could take the fate point and then go on a speech/rant for the mages or perhaps not take it and realize that diplomacy is needed here. 

 

People say "well I want to join cory" or "I want to disband the chantry" have to realize that even in PnP games you have limits, at least IMO good storytellers would have some structure of the story we are telling. For instance before the games even begin to be prepared I like making sure that people are on board with what the game concept could be, that could be playing as sabbat vampires in oWoD or members of a particular house in Ars Magica, or a star wars game focused just on jedi or smugglers, or in Eberron focused on one area/kingdom and so and so on.  This is why I am not upset that we play in the boundries of what Bioware has designed for us, as that is how I tend to play table-top

 

To me a roleplaying game isn't about mechanics but about roleplaying not rollplaying. I can create different characters; I have 2 quizzy's atm who are rather different from one another and despite using the same VA, they feel different from another. 1 is a pro-chantry and devoted andrastian archer the other is a pro-elven dalish mage. Often when it comes to choices in past games, like KOTOR for instance, my choices were thusly "saint" or "guy who is a pyscho sadist" I like having other options and Inquistion is giving me choices. 

 

Now mechanics are useful and neccessary. Do I think Inquistion is perfect, no I do not. But it is a good rpg IMO. I am not sure if I should be happy for bioware or annoyed, but I see a lot of potential with the setup and design of Inquistion.There is much that they can improve on, and they can improve. They could have had brought up more of your background into the game, for instance meeting the Lavellan clan after certain revelations would be good. Having the main quest tie into each region more would IMO solve most issues with the game. 

 

my 2 cents.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

Quite frankly, I don't consider it a good RPG, a good game certainly but not a good RPG.

It's, to me at least, far too restricting in terms of gameplay mechanics (extreme weapon restrictions for no real reason, lack of non-combat abilities, forcing me to use certain gear, etc.), which doesn't allow me to play/create the character I want.

Roleplaying & character development shouldn't be confined to dialog choices, in fact the world needs to react to your actions if you want proper roleplaying. That, however, isn't the case with DA:I. Roleplaying and a reactive world take a backseat to the action element.

 

That being said, I still like the game for what it is (first playthrough 160 hours). But the roleplaying aspect could be handled a lot better.

[Corto81]

This is why anyone who claims that it's lacking in RPG aspects for any number of reasons show they have failed to do their homework or temper their expectations to a reasonable degree. These are personal failings, and not really a reflection of the product.

 

I don't understand this.

Simply because you want it hard to be something, doesn't mean that its so.

 

 

I've stated, multiple times, FACTUAL reasons as to why your character customization, class build and world impact is severely limited compared to, for example, DA:O.

I've also stated FACTUAL reasons as to why the open world design that Bioware has implemented is flawed and looks like a theme park where everything exists so you quest in it, rather than a living, breathing, vibrant, reactive world.

 

WIthout getting too much into all these points again (easy enough to find them in the thread), they are, in fact, a reflection of the product, not my personal expectations.

[mickey111]

 

Are you comparing the resources needed to create BG2's character and main plot to those of DAI?

That would...frankly...be laughable.

...what gave you that idea? DA:I is the one trying to be skyrim. Actually, the first BG is a lot more like inquisition than BGII was... big world, with lots of filler areas that have a whole lot of stuff of comparatively little interest. Little wonder why BGII was the more popular of the two for deciding to cut out the fat to the benefit of the main quest line and making the fewer explorable world map locations more packed with things to do and see. 

[Julia Luna]

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.

I hate the game more than everything and I do agree with you. But I, and many others, couldn't care less if it is a good role playing experience, you misundertand things, as do all the people that really focus on the meaning of the words rather than the meaning of what has been said. It is pretty obvious that when a certain fanbase is refferencing a good RPG or a true RPG we are not talking about all this useless **** you talked about.

 

It is like when arguing with someone and they think it is pretty or somehow useful to point out the exact words said and what they mean, this kind of people should go play UFC or other fighting thing that is where their skills are useful, when talking to human beings "understanding meaning" is WAY FAR MORE USEFUL than sticking to "default meaning", any adult have enough experience to understand that words can barely represent out thoughts and feelings and that you can only communicate with other humans by sharing some common ground like culture, knowledge or at least language (to some degree, even if it is by creating one that works for both).

 

So yeah, great definition of what is RPG, I can even agree that such games are more RPG than what I (and other people) call RPG but it doesn't mean ****, you can't get more useless than sticking to definitions. Obviously people who love old Bioware games were never looking for this "true role playing experience", we were and are always looking for better and improved same experience we had with the games we played, we like builds, distributing stats, choosing feats, skills, creating characters that were not meant to be and so on... this is how we see ourselves represented in the game just in case you lack the ability to understand it and are in fact thinking that we care about what is in fact roleplaying...

 

Seriously, if you think that anything in this life is about explaining, about definitions, than you should reborn and try to understand life again

[Itkovian]

Missing RPG elements, no player character development, no companion development, no freedom of being good or bad, missing classes, lore elements missing, no absolute control over player character or companions

 

 

I'm not sure I follow... let's see:

 

- No player character development. I dunno about you, but I've gone through a lot of character developement, both as a character in a story (don't want to spoil, but there's a lot of development about faith and the testing thereof), and through mechanics (skill trees and so on). Even the choice of specialization is a handled through questing and character interaction (with an impact on dialogues).

 

- No companion development. How so? Companions get massive character developement through the storyline, including some huge character changes, and once again you have full control on their mechanics.

 

- No freedom to be good or bad. That's accurate, though is that a requirement to be an RPG? Is it a fundamental RPG element in the first place? You do get a lot of choices as to how you behave yourself, how you lead the inquisition, and who to support and so on. But I'm not sure that freedom to be good or bad is a requirement. You need freedom, certainly, but that can be expressed in many different ways, not necessarily on the good/bad axis.

 

- Missing classes. Dragon Age has always been a 3 class system, but that certainly does not disqualify from being an RPG. Heck, they made a PnP RPG out of that system. The RPGness of an RPG is not proportional to the number of classes.

 

- Lore element missing. That one eludes me. What lore elements? There's plenty of lore building in DAI, massive codex entries, tons of stuff to read around the world to build up lore. Heck, I've been playing in the Hissing Wastes lately, where a story is being told through "poetry" and journals found all over. That's pretty good lore and worldbuilding.

 

- No absolute control over characters. I wans't aware that "absolute control" was a requirement for an RPG. By that definition only sandbox games will ever be RPGs.

 

Anyway, point is that RPG is in fact a broader term than you would ascribe it to be. DAI is definitely an RPG, no matter how it streamlined some RPG elements. It's like saying D&D isn't an RPG, because ADnD Skills and Power had a lot more control over character development. ::shrug::

[Itkovian]

People say "well I want to join cory" or "I want to disband the chantry" have to realize that even in PnP games you have limits, at least IMO good storytellers would have some structure of the story we are telling. For instance before the games even begin to be prepared I like making sure that people are on board with what the game concept could be, that could be playing as sabbat vampires in oWoD or members of a particular house in Ars Magica, or a star wars game focused just on jedi or smugglers, or in Eberron focused on one area/kingdom and so and so on.  This is why I am not upset that we play in the boundries of what Bioware has designed for us, as that is how I tend to play table-top

 

To me a roleplaying game isn't about mechanics but about roleplaying not rollplaying. I can create different characters; I have 2 quizzy's atm who are rather different from one another and despite using the same VA, they feel different from another. 1 is a pro-chantry and devoted andrastian archer the other is a pro-elven dalish mage. Often when it comes to choices in past games, like KOTOR for instance, my choices were thusly "saint" or "guy who is a pyscho sadist" I like having other options and Inquistion is giving me choices. 

 

 

This, precisely, is why any claims of DAI not being an RPG is baseless. It is, as are most games calling themselves RPGs today.

 

A game doens't need to be a sandbox with complete freedom to be an RPG, just like a Pen and Paper game doesn't need to be a sandbox to be a proper RPG. It's different narrative styles. Some GMs prefer to let the heroes dictate everything, only creating the world around them, while others like to craft and tell a good story while giving players freedom to act within the confines of the story (players who tacitly agree to being part of a story in the first place).

 

It's all RPGs. Feel free to restrict your own personal definition to something else, but don't go around proclaiming it has any basic on the actual genre definition.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Julia Luna:  Wow, you're hostile.

 

I love old Bioware games.

 

I also love not being stuck in a singular mindset incapable of adapting to those "newfangled youngsters" who are ruining quality tradition with their senseless noise. 

 

Sorry grognards and mechanics junkies... DA:I wasn't for you.

[stevemill]

I agree - it's not an 'Old School' RPG.  But Origins did not define what an RPG is.  It's just one example.  From my experiences at the dawn of the computer game age - Bards Tale, Might and Magic, Ultima, The Lords of Midnight, Wizardry and the various Gold Box games were other examples.

 

About the only thing linking them is that you have a hero on a quest embodied in a story and varieties of crude and less crude implementation of table top RPG mechanics.

 

In none of them could you wander off and do or be what you wanted.  Neither could you in the later games like Dungeon Master, Daggerfall or Arena.  In some, there was barely any depiction of the world at all beyond linked story settings.  Or npc's to speak of.

 

The Quest is the central feature of fantasy and has been the central feature of fantasy rpg's since the beginning.  It's simply nonsense to say a 'true' rpg has to allow you to step away from the story.  You are always a character on a quest.  Most classic crpg's simply do not permit you to step off the story path.  The Gold Box D&D ones being a case in point and don't even try to tell me those weren't True Scotsmen, I mean CRPG's. The characters I created in those and played through several huge adventures remain with me to this day.

 

Does DAI deliver a quest?  Yes it does.  Does it deliver memorable characters, including your own. Yes it does.

 

The question of mechanics remains.  Is it a necessary definition of an rpg that it has an implementation of old table top mechanics with a vast series of user changeable numbers that shape gameplay outcomes?  Furthermore is it necessary that these numbers dynamism and user control does not come wholly from equipment, spells or other external factors?

 

No - it's about having the options to shape the character mechanics and DAI delivers that through itemisation and skill trees.

 

Once you look at the crude simplicity of tactics, combat, character and magic systems in classic CRPG's it's very hard to believe that the difference between DAI and DAO stops the former being an RPG.

 

There's a third essential component of an rpg which is nothing to do with mechanics and that is the player experience, which is a personal thing.  Does the setting in specific and the game in general emotionally engage the player?  Do they feel they are playing a character?

 

For me with DAI - I do and no one can tell me otherwise. This is nothing to do with day and night cycles, npc conversations or any technicality.  It's about how everything from the visuals, the audio, the companion characterisation, the story, the choices and the details of the background embodied in the codex draw me into the fictive dream.

 

Just as the crude pixels and crude mechanics of the Pools of Radiance also drew me in.

 

So yes - DAI is every bit as much a CRPG as DAO (which I also loved).  It's just different in some ways that don't impact on what a great RPG experience it is delivering for me.

 

It's got the questing, it's got the mechanics and it's got the world setting  - it's got everything I expect crpg's deliver.

 

The fact that it doesn't deliver what others were expecting, what others wanted, or what others imagine should have been possible isn't the point.

 

It means you don't like DAI, not that it's not a True Scotsman.

 

You might not like the pattern of its kilt or the colour of its sporran but it is.

 

And for me it's pretty much the best CRPG I've played for a long time.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Stevemill:  Medhia_Nox Greatly Approves.

[Bladenite1481]

It's an RPG, its just a crappy one. 

 

Your choices do not matter, at all. There is no agency in what you do. You are carried aloft on the wings of the Inquisition whether you like it or not. If you don't like it then you are stuffed with cop outs like "People need to believe in something". Well if that is true then isn't the only way that you are represented as a Pope like authority whether you believe it or not?

 

Your choices dwindle down to little more than off screen theater or passing conversation, maybe an extra item or two. 

 

The crux of everything we heard in the many cinematics and trailers was you are going to be a Leader, what kind of leader will you be? But you can only be one kind of leader. Sure you can be snarky about it and disagree with your counselors but just like Giselle says it doesnt matter if you have faith or not, or that you believe or not, it only matters what other people believe about you based on what they saw. There is no way to change this, you have no agency, no true authority, you are a slave to the mark on your hand and nothing more. The basic people are like Dagna, she doesn't come there for you..she comes because you pay her well and you have the glowing mark on your hand. The game makes it VERY clear, you don't matter, the mark does. 

 

At least in DAO I could go about things how I wanted. In Redcliffe alone you could kill Connor, or save him, or even have his own mother kill him. If you saved a shopkeeper, they didn't just vanish anyway to be replaced whether you like it or not. In DAI, your people are replaced and you fight Red Templars despite what decision you make. It just feels like it doesn't matter what you do, you're always going down the same road. 

 

For character creation and attributes, it is more than simply what you are stating. The system they have created pidgeon holes each sub type of class. Limited healing means damage mitigation is king, thus everyone and their grandmother wanting barrier and guard creation abilities. Combos based on specific detonators force certain methodical party contributions and the tying of stats to abilities means that if you DO want certain stats that you are forced to either create the same iteration of armor over and over or take the exact same abilities every time. Separating those abilities also allows for more head cannon..maybe I'm a rogue but I like con because in my head my Rogue works as a freight packer at night. It does not matter that you don't think it's limiting, the fact is compared to older systems it is limiting. There are less choices, less choices means narrower scopes of definition and probability, sure its an RPG, but its an RPG on rails. Yes most RPG's are on rails, including DAO but they sure hid them a lot better than DAI does. 

 

You know why you have 8 slots?  Because its artificial extension, with only 8 slots you have to replay in order to create a new version of your character. How would I play that battle differently if I had x instead of y in my arbitrary 8 slot limit of abilities?

 

I go to a lot of writing seminars. I hear things quite often about how certain writers are crap that are best sellers. I immediately defend them with their pocket book or at least I used to. I understand what they mean now. There are writers and there are good story tellers, they are not necessarily synonymous terms. What they mean is there is both an artistry and a technical element to writing and no I don't mean grammar. You can write a good story, but can you finish it? Can you go back through and make sure that everything makes sense or are you okay with the cracks that litter the manuscript? Do you care enough to make it more than just good or are you happy with it checking off the requisite boxes, fulfilling the three act structure and answering the question from the first act?

 

yes, its an RPG. It fills the requisite check boxes and has just enough choices to be technically validated, but the artistry that was once there is long gone and in it's place is left only a half masticated husk of what could have been. 

[Ieldra]

@herkles:

I wouldn't hate your favorite system. I've used a variant of the Eden Unisystem that added a similar idea, though it doesn't do away with attributes. With creative players, you can really create fantastic stories.

 

@stevemill:

An excellent summary. I wish it would be easier to pin down why people simply like or dislike something, because I have a hard time believing that outrage over small things like a day/night cycle isn't a proxy for something else. I have an easier time understanding the people who complain they can't be evil bastards. I don't have the slightest idea why anyone would want to play the villain, but it's character expression and that's an essential part of roleplaying. Mechanics only have to work in order to do their job. They don't need to be complex.

[Vox Draco]

@Julia Luna:  Wow, you're hostile.

 

I love old Bioware games.

 

I also love not being stuck in a singular mindset incapable of adapting to those "newfangled youngsters" who are ruining quality tradition with their senseless noise. 

 

Sorry grognards and mechanics junkies... DA:I wasn't for you.

 

It baffles me indeed that for some people stats and mechanics are the quintessential of RPGs ... so weird. But different people, different tastes I guess. Glad that DAI for me is doing its proper job as an RPG as I define it: it sucks myself into the story, world and lore (and yes, my definitions for RPGs are quite loose ^^)

[theluc76]

let me help Itkovian.

 

- No player character development. I dunno about you, but I've gone through a lot of character development, both as a character in a story (don't want to spoil, but there's a lot of development about faith and the testing thereof), and through mechanics (skill trees and so on). Even the choice of specialization is a handled through questing and character interaction (with an impact on dialogues).

 

Exactly as I wrote, depending how far you are in the game determines the development of the character, therefore whatever build you have, you character does no difference or impact the game, you still have to do the quests to gain that development.

 

- No companion development. How so? Companions get massive character development through the storyline, including some huge character changes, and once again you have full control on their mechanics.

 

Not the gear or giving a second role in combat, limited to enough choices to fill the gaps. as example I like Varric but to fill the gap Im stuck with Iron Bull.

 

- No freedom to be good or bad. That's accurate, though is that a requirement to be an RPG? Is it a fundamental RPG element in the first place? You do get a lot of choices as to how you behave yourself, how you lead the inquisition, and who to support and so on. But I'm not sure that freedom to be good or bad is a requirement. You need freedom, certainly, but that can be expressed in many different ways, not necessarily on the good/bad axis.

 

Id say yes as the first game was possible, there was consequences to. When expanding a world you're suppose to expand not remove features or replace them with something else.

 

- Missing classes. Dragon Age has always been a 3 class system, but that certainly does not disqualify from being an RPG. Heck, they made a PnP RPG out of that system. The RPGness of an RPG is not proportional to the number of classes.

 

Missing specialization was the correct Phrase.

 

- Lore element missing. That one eludes me. What lore elements? There's plenty of lore building in DAI, massive codex entries, tons of stuff to read around the world to build up lore. Heck, I've been playing in the Hissing Wastes lately, where a story is being told through "poetry" and journals found all over. That's pretty good lore and world building.

 

you read about it, you don't experience the lore first hand or being witness, a suggestion implemented by text. Go to Paris, find a fancy restaurant, its closed so only thing you can do is read the menu. Healers where are you guys, oh yeah I did read a story bout some guy he was a healer. Just an example.

 

- No absolute control over characters. I wasn't aware that "absolute control" was a requirement for an RPG. By that definition only sandbox games will ever be RPGs.

 

DAO you had full control and its not a sand box game.

 

Anyway, point is that RPG is in fact a broader term than you would ascribe it to be. DAI is definitely an RPG, no matter how it streamlined some RPG elements. It's like saying D&D isn't an RPG, because ADnD Skills and Power had a lot more control over character development. ::shrug::

 

Just like a MMO, its slimfast, huh I meant streamlined.D&D is the first, the newest incarnation which 5th edition is an adventure game just like Hero Quest but you acquire skills & loot by scenarios, now the true D&D is called Pathfinder.

hope its better for you

[Medhia_Nox]

 @Ieldra:  I believe it has everything to do with nostalgia. 

 

When they were younger - they really loved "Game X" and they want to relive that experience.  Of course, that's preposterous - but when someone's unhappy that time marches on, they'll lash out at a million little things. 

 

It affects the mechanics heavy gamers worst.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

 @Ieldra:  I believe it has everything to do with nostalgia. 

 

When they were younger - they really loved "Game X" and they want to relive that experience.  Of course, that's preposterous - but when someone's unhappy that time marches on, they'll lash out at a million little things. 

 

It affects the mechanics heavy gamers worst.

 

No, it's not really about nostalgia.

 

Things like a day/night cycle help with immersion (as part of DA:I is semi-open world exploration, it wasn't needed in either DA:O or DA 2), as does an interactive & reactive world (e.g. being able to sit, have people react to you plundering their belonings, etc.). Otherwise all you really have is a somewhat interactive story, but not an immersive RPG.

The same applies to maintaining an in-game logic... for example, when you get constantly warned about how terribly dangerous even small amounts of red lyrium are, I should have negative effects from carrying it around for a prolonged amount of time. But things like that get left out because suddenly there's a price to pay for power and that doesn't fit well with the action part.

 

What DA:I does right is character development within the story itself, both in the main questline and the companion quests & party banter. That part is undeniably well done. Where it falls short is freedom in character development in regards to game mechanics, the whole design there is too restrictive.

It doesn't need to be a TES-like level of freedom (Skyrim went way too far in that regard), but stuff like separating weapons skills from classes to some degree (some restrictions are fine, like staves being mage only or two-handed weapons being warrior only), same with armor. Give me the option to put points in non-combat skills and thus the choice of being less effective in combat but able to excel in other things, be it picking locks/disabling traps or persuading people/barter for better prices.

The combination of all these things is what makes a good RPG.

[Ieldra]

@Kendaric:

I agree about the limited world interactivity. That will have to be drastically improved if Bioware wants to capture the immersion of open-world games. Also, of course a better world simulation is desirable. It's just that some people make small things like this out to be critical features whose absence makes the game bad. It's as if I'd say DAI was a bad game because it has paraphrasing. Most regulars here know how much I hate the paraphrasing, yet I have to admit (most grudgingly, I assure you) that it has resulted in few tangible problems in DAI, and thus, its presence is not a critical flaw.  

[theluc76]

Kendaric Varkellen did mention very good points.

 

FarCry 3 and 4 also are adventure games with similar mechanics, presentation even if very different, setting and actual gameplay compared to DAI are really opposites but MOST of the same mechanics are there even if minimal like discution choices, skill tree, quest that unlocks other skills or loot and so on.

 

Im just trying to make the understand that the product is not what people call a RPG.

 

The community can like the game as much as they want, really I have no issue with that.