272 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

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

While the quality of the world simulation does affect the roleplaying dimension - because it makes it easier or harder to act as your character - the same is not true of the attribute and skill mechanics. In fact, the more complex these mechanics are, the more you risk that they get in the way of roleplaying. Complex mechanics are for tactical simulation, not roleplaying. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to mistake the former for the latter.

 

Note that I do like more in-depth tactical simulation and wish that DAI had more of it, but roleplaying it is not.

[Cyonan]

 

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.

 

 

I think first you have to make people understand why DA:I is apparently an "adventure game" while DA:O is a RPG.

 

In DA:I I'm allowed to choose: Gender, race, class, specialization, skills, and decide some major plot points during the story. Character alignment is defined via dialogue that you get to choose.

 

In DA:O I'm allowed to choose: Gender, race, class, specialization, skills, stats, and decide some major plot points during the story. Character alignment is defined via dialogue that you get to choose.

 

In Far Cry 3 I'm allowed to choose: Skills and one major plot point. There is no choice in dialogue.

 

Explain to me how only one of those is a RPG.

[Joxer]

FarCry 3 is a shooter. With RPG (skills) and adventure elements (tower puzzles). It's not RPG. It's not an adventure.

It's just a brilliant - shooter.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Kendaric Varkellen:  Interesting - I'd prefer these things to be totally unpresent unless they're going to matter.

 

Immersion is "nice" - but people really only want it to a point.  So then the question becomes:  "To what point do you immerse your audience in ambient nature..."
 

You're not going to get sick if you stay out in the rain too long... or get frostbite if you slog through snow for endless hours... and even day/night cycles are horrible when you never get tired.

 

The village of Smalltown isn't going to have crop failure if there's a lot of snow... or a flood if there's a lot of rain... or a drought if there's none.

 

Anyone looking to find fault can literally go on endlessly with the nebulous argument of "immersion". 

[theluc76]

you are right Leldra the attribute and skill system can get in the way of the role playing as the warrior created by the player has high constitution but low charisma. Intimidate anyone no problem, getting his dream girl, that's gonna be very very hard.

 

But that is the choice of the player, meaningful choice and consequence.

 

Yes Joxer FarCry 3 and 4 are brilliant First Person Shooters with very strong Adventure Game elements, I took FarCry 3 and 4 as examples to get the extremes.

 

Cyonan its been explained already, if choosing dialogue A or B is enough for you to call it a RPG good for you.

 

Now time for me to ride my Honda Mustang.

[xkg]

 

While the quality of the world simulation does affect the roleplaying dimension - because it makes it easier or harder to act as your character - the same is not true of the attribute and skill mechanics. In fact, the more complex these mechanics are, the more you risk that they get in the way of roleplaying. Complex mechanics are for tactical simulation, not roleplaying. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to mistake the former for the latter.

 

Note that I do like more in-depth tactical simulation and wish that DAI had more of it, but roleplaying it is not.

 

RPG evolved from tactical miniature wargame, and the very first RPG was more like tactical game with some story to support random encounters. It was more about simulating these encounters with player created characters than about about the story. Wasn't it like that ? I think it was.

 

DnD (RPG) session:

Spoiler

 

In game strongly focused on storytelling and with no complex mechanics there is no need for complex character sheets, maps and minaitures to simulate encounters. Yet here they are, used in very first RPG.

Nice that you have your own classification but don't confuse it with reality.

[Giantdeathrobot]

You may believe that, but that doesn't make it right as logic still applies. And obviously few to no options is less than at least two major options.

 

Example: BG2 let me become a ****ing god of murder and live up to that, while I could also simply toss the legacy aside and remain a human (with demi-god-like powers though). Two completely different outcomes (in fact there were even more outcomes although not as radically opposite to each other as these). What can I do in DA:I? Save the world, build the Inquisition. They don't even tell me that I made it a super power in that its army's march shook the earth, its daggers in the dark were feared in all of Thedas and every ruler stood in awe of my magnificence as divine Inquisitor, heeding my every word or face obliteration (that would have been an acceptable outcome for those going for power-mongering for instance). Instead, always the same outcome with minor variations (whether Hawke, Loghain or Stout went to Weisshaupt and mysteriously dissappeared etc. wow.

 

That's purely opinion, not fact, stop acting as if you hold all the sacred truths.

 

The thing is, older Bioware games (mostly BG2, NWN, KOTOR and Jade Empire) had ''significant'' choices if you wanna call them that but they are ridiculously unsubtle. You are either a Good Guy who loves everyone and saves maidens, or a puppy-eating evil bastard. No in betweens the vast majority of the time. Good vs Evil. Sure, that's more difference between two characters but it's boring as sin.

 

Newer RPGs often try to be more subtle than that. Fallout New Vegas hinged, not on your karma meter, but on your reputation with various factions, and who you supported was far more important than how good/evil you were. The latter barely gets a reference in the epilogue. You could be a warmongering bastard who supports the democratic NCR, or a goody two-shoes pacifist who supports the autocratic Mr. House. It did have a hole in which a good character working for the Legion made pretty much no sense but still.

 

Inquisition allows you to role-play a lot. I can be an Andrastian mage who wants to see the Chantry reformed, and thus wanted Vivienne as divine among other things. My second character is an atheist Qunari who doesn't have time for any religious nonsense, encourage Leliana to be murder-happy and will try to have her as Divine because, hey, either she reforms the Chantry to be less full of assholes, or it doesn't work and she weakens it greatly. Win-win. My third charatcer will be a Dalish who, if I understood things correctly, has lots of content pertaining to her culture, especially if she romances Solas, and will grow to slowly accept her role as Herald of Andraste even if she still believes in Dalish gods. Not even going into the Mage-Templar choices which influences the story in a big way, or who gets chosen as head(s) of Orlais.

 

If you ask me, that's way better role-playing than ''do you want to be a Good Guy or a Bad Guy?''. We have finally moved past that dichotomy.

 

 

[Bladenite1481]

Anything allows you to role play a lot. I could always role play anything I wanted even if it was not a RPG because it's all in my head. The truth is your choices don't matter, the game still plays exactly the same. 

 

Choose Mage or Choose Templar..still see the same scene, retextured figures thrusting their staff or sword into the ground and still fight Red Templars

 

Choose Chargers or Iron Boat - get a choice of one schematic at the end of a list of available operations

 

Save or dont save the people from Haven - doesnt matter, they are replaced anyway

 

Do or dont believe in Andraste - doesnt matter, people still bust out singing Thedas' version of Cumbiyah and pronounce you Inquisitor because you have a mark on your hand.

 

All it changes to be another race is a very small bit of your dialogue and for a lot of us, that just isn't enough.  Especially when the combat is so dull and lifeless, its a button mashing contest unless the enemy has a lot of HP and then its a malaise of dreariness as I babysit each and every one of my idiot companions because the AI believes that you should fire your arrows from three feet in front of the dragon's head and then stand in his pool of breath while your life dwindles to nothing. 

 

Again, its an RPG but its a poor one. I don't get to play my Inquisitor, I get to play Bioware's version of my Inquisitor. In DAO, I often had the ability to go out of my way to make the ending the best one, or take shortcuts and get things done quickly..ie saving an entire tower to save Connor, or no Forget that..make Isolde kill him, after all she brought the wretch into this world in the first place. In DAI, you can be snarky, you can hate the chantry, you can love or hate Andraste and it really does not matter in the least. Your companions honestly only need you for the hand, other than that you are window dressing. You sacrifice Hawke or the Warden and it makes no difference other than impacting Varric's dialogue..why cant I fight the spider? You choose a boat or your own team when the enemy is like 10 feet down the hill from you..yeah its an RPG, but its so far on rails its like bowling with bumpers. I see no reason to play again because my character has no power to change anything substantial. 

 

There is a scene at the end where you say "I could ask for no better counsel than the three of you" and Cullen says "We could ask for no better cause", not leader, not Inquisitor, but cause. It further cements that you don't matter, only the events do. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@xkg:  Red Box never ever required miniatures. 

 

@Bladenight1481:  What RPG do your choices "matter" that continues in a sequential order?  None of the Fallouts continue in the same place.  Your choices don't matter in the Balder's Gate games... Jade Empire doesn't have a sequential sequal - nor does KOTOR.

 

Why can't I choose to be a Bhaalspawn farmer?  Why can't I choose to leave the Capital Wasteland?  Why can't I choose to be a toymaker instead of a martial arts master?  Every CRPG ever is railroaded - so saying that "DA:I" is railroaded and that's why it's not an CRPG is a bit strange. 

 

As for Connor - what you do to Connor is no more impactful to the game than chosing Mages or Templars.  In fact - Mages/Templars is the same choice as "dwarves or golems" or "elves or werewolves".  Except... that the entire world is populated by the opposing force you didn't choose... odd, the entire world changes because you choose mages or templars... what changes because of how you kill/save Connor?  Nothing. 

 

People have their panties in a bunch because this game doesn't zero in on the PC and worship him (odd that a game about the PC being a religious icon has people in a twist about not being the center of attention) - the Inquisition and Thedas are the centers of attention - and some people (not me) clearly don't like it.

[robmokron]

After spending days reading every post, good debates I want to put my two cents.

 

Keep in mind its my opinion as well that Im about 70-90 hours in and havent done any main quests after you get to skyhold, just minorly explored some area,s hinterlands heavy no im going heavy into crestwood.

 

DA:I is a great roleplaying game

 

In DA: I You play the role of the inquisitor, with the tools that is given to you by bioware, you can change plot points, make choices on various things, decide which quest to pursue. There are Main Quests, Companion quests, Side quests , Misc quests (the fetch one everyone complains about) also branching misc quests (doig one leads to a bunch of themed misc quests opening up, usually leading to an agent) You can decide how your character feels about the world around him/her.

 

This is what i feel is roleplaying.

 

Alot of people are complaining that since event A always happens in every playthrough and event b always happens in every playthrough, the game doesnt give you a enough choice. 

 

DA:O which alot of people are saying is a better RPG because it offers more choice, forget that Ostagar, always happens, as well as the Landsmeet. see what im saying? DA:O actually has less choice in my opinion or atleast just as much.

 

"But DA:O has more side quests that matter!"

 

really? The circle, Brecillian forest, redcliff, temple of sacred ashed and ozzimar, are main quests that you can take in any order. You have to do them to get to the landsmeet

 

In DA:I the difference is (or what it seems,) is that its set up in acts, with branching main quests athat you can take in any order within that act.

 

I could go on and on and on, but i cant define what the REAL definition of an RPG, just what i think.

 

DA:I did good.

[Bladenite1481]

@xkg:  Red Box never ever required miniatures. 

 

@Bladenight1481:  What RPG do your choices "matter" that continues in a sequential order?  None of the Fallouts continue in the same place.  Your choices don't matter in the Balder's Gate games... Jade Empire doesn't have a sequential sequal - nor does KOTOR.

 

Why can't I choose to be a Bhaalspawn farmer?  Why can't I choose to leave the Capital Wasteland?  Why can't I choose to be a toymaker instead of a martial arts master?  Every CRPG ever is railroaded - so saying that "DA:I" is railroaded and that's why it's not an CRPG is a bit strange. 

 

As for Connor - what you do to Connor is no more impactful to the game than chosing Mages or Templars.  In fact - Mages/Templars is the same choice as "dwarves or golems" or "elves or werewolves".  Except... that the entire world is populated by the opposing force you didn't choose... odd, the entire world changes because you choose mages or templars... what changes because of how you kill/save Connor?  Nothing. 

 

People have their panties in a bunch because this game doesn't zero in on the PC and worship him (odd that a game about the PC being a religious icon has people in a twist about not being the center of attention) - the Inquisition and Thedas are the centers of attention - and some people (not me) clearly don't like it.

You assume quite a bit, you can read what that does, I won't bother. What I will say is that if I don't matter in a story about me, then why should I care about their story? I don't pay 70$ for a novel. 

 

Ive already said that DAO was on rails, but the rails are hidden quite a bit better and my choices at least look like they matter. At no point in this game did I think anything mattered and at no point did I think the world was in danger. The other thing is that even if Its not me that mattered, I never cared at all about Thedas or my companions, frankly they would all follow a personified lamp if it carried the green hand with it. The inquisition is built on a false premise of belief and its a forced trite and convoluted path that does little to push the narrative forward in any meaningful way. Its a good story, but its written badly. 

[CronoDragoon]

Explain to me how only one of those is a RPG.

 

The entire notion of defining an RPG seems a bit fruitless to me. There are plenty of awful RPGs out there, and plenty of awful RPG mechanics (in both cases recognized by the majority as such). So it's never been clear to me what use saying a game is "more" of an RPG than another game has, unless of course one has an ulterior motive to define an RPG such that it only encapsulates game mechanics they like.

 

But no one would do that.

[Morroian]

Interestingly Laidlaw was asked in the stream this morning to describe what they took from old rpgs for DAI and his reply was along the lines of the whole power mechanic being inspired by Sid Meiers Pirates. I was like 

[Giantdeathrobot]

The entire notion of defining an RPG seems a bit fruitless to me. There are plenty of awful RPGs out there, and plenty of awful RPG mechanics (in both cases recognized by the majority as such). So it's never been clear to me what use saying a game is "more" of an RPG than another game has, unless of course one has an ulterior motive to define an RPG such that it only encapsulates game mechanics they like.

 

But no one would do that.

 

This is exactly what happens almost every time there's this ''what is an RPG'' nonsense going on. The game I like is an RPG. The game you don't like is not a TRUE RPG. Every. Single. Time.

 

@Bladenite you're going to have to tell me what RPGs you felt did this well, because I can't recall a single game that allows you that much narrative freedom. The choices in every single RPG in existence can be described as window dressing.

 

Also, if you complain that the AI stands in stuff and enemies don't die fast, I'm not sure you're playing the game properly. You need to manage your party you know, like in every party-based RPG ever), and even dragons go down in less than 5 minutes sans pauses if you use good synergy and tactics. Normal mooks on Hard barely last 10 seconds to me.

[AlanC9]

Interestingly Laidlaw was asked in the stream this morning to describe what they took from old rpgs for DAI and his reply was along the lines of the whole power mechanic being inspired by Sid Meiers Pirates. I was like

What's wrong with that? Isn't Pirates the progenitor of open-world action RPGs?

[Jouni S]

@xkg:  Red Box never ever required miniatures.

The Red Box was the fourth edition of the original D&D. The first edition was basically an expansion of the miniatures wargame Chainmail, and some of the core D&D mechanics originated as rules for individual combat in Chainmail.

The editions of D&D published in the 2000s are actually editions of AD&D, not D&D. The publisher just dropped the word 'advanced', because it was afraid it would intimidate new players.

[Viidicus]

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. 

 

This

[Bladenite1481]

This is exactly what happens almost every time there's this ''what is an RPG'' nonsense going on. The game I like is an RPG. The game you don't like is not a TRUE RPG. Every. Single. Time.

 

@Bladenite you're going to have to tell me what RPGs you felt did this well, because I can't recall a single game that allows you that much narrative freedom. The choices in every single RPG in existence can be described as window dressing.

 

Also, if you complain that the AI stands in stuff and enemies don't die fast, I'm not sure you're playing the game properly. You need to manage your party you know, like in every party-based RPG ever), and even dragons go down in less than 5 minutes sans pauses if you use good synergy and tactics. Normal mooks on Hard barely last 10 seconds to me.

You mistake my boredom for ineptitude. I finished the game on Nightmare with FF, never went below nightmare and never went below 6 potions. The game is not hard, its tedious. I don't want to babysit my team, I want them to not be stupid which I used to be able to assure through tactics and am now only able to make them defend themselves and stay out of my way. 

 

I have gone out of my way to say many games have the same literal agency of DAI, the issue is that the effective agency or how you feel while playing is lacking. Whether Isolde killed Connor or you killed Connor or saved him, the effect was the same in DAO and had little effect on the ending. However it made you feel evil, good or indifferent and thus allowed you the perception of Agency. In DAI there are several things where the illusion of agency is completely stripped away arbitrarily, why do I have to choose between Chargers or the boat? The guys are 20 feet away from me, my mage can get there in two fade steps and initiate combat..It's contrived and forced. Like playing DnD with a bad DM whom is more interested in their story than your character's well being. 

 

I have worked out that one of my major issues with this game is that they have tried too hard to get away from dichotomy. I am not sure if people harped on them about their dark fantasy being too nice or too black and white because this game goes out of it's way to force you into gray decisions. Nothing is good, nothing is bad, its all in between. When one or two things are like this, okay, but when every single decision is forced to be gray because, narrative reasons then it becomes little more than following the yellow brick road and killing the bad guy. If I expect you to throw a gray decision at me every time then it loses its effectiveness and I become desensitized to it, I just stop paying attention because the narrative at this point is bland. DAO more often than not, gave you the chance to come out smelling like roses instead of always forcing you to sacrifice something for no good reason. DAI doesn't do that, you're always screwing someone else over and no I don't think that's realistic. I think its easy. 

[hangmans tree]

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.

 

[...]

 

So now consider Dragon Age: Inquisition and ask: how many *meaningful* decisions do you make in 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.

"Meaningful" decisions that amount to nothing really. Do they have impact? Debatable. Someone coined a good term for DAI: Single Player MMO.

To me your explanation sounds more like a apologists statement. I do not agree that depraving characters of feature and stats level up mechanic is irrevelant. Its simplistic. Arguing that BW focused on decisions making is flawed because how you play your character also defines it. Not only what you do but how you do it.

 

I'm afraid taht because of the times and new generation of players that are molded before they have a taste what was before is gona change how RPG are made and percived. The ter was never clear cut but taking from the experience another chunk of what rpg was only cheapens it. Because the society became iconographicm we see more shallow representation of "choices" and "dialogues" each time new game sees light. Maybe next DA will have no convo to begin with, all we will get is a pretty icon describing what colour of feelings you have while answering. This does not bode well for the genre when giants making it are devolving rather than ascending to new levels and ideas.

 

Every game must be quick paced, flashy and engaging (the new rule)... unfortuantely more than often it lacks depth.

[Ieldra]

[Sorry for the awkward reading, but this is the no spoiler forum so I've put the spoilers in spoiler tags]

 

@Bladenite1481:

If I understand you correctly, you aren't satisfied with DAI because the decisions you make do not feel meaningful to you. I fully agree that if decisions do not feel meaningful to you then the game's roleplaying dimension fails for you.

 

I'm curious, though, why it would be that way for you in DAI, because for me it's exactly the other way. The decisions feel meaningful, and in part they do that exactly because there is no golden path in most decisions (there is in some, I'll get to that). If there is a golden path, then any deviation from it makes you either stupid or wilfully evil. I felt that way about the Broken Circle, the Sacred Ashes, the Werewolf plot and - to a lesser degree - Connor at Redcliffe. Thus, my choice there feels meaningless. In fact, specifically in the Werewolf quest I felt I didn't really have one if I didn't want to play a stupid or wilfully evil Warden.

 

Compare that with, say, the decision at the Orlesian court. I think we can say that...

Spoiler

...letting the assassination happen is the "more evil" choice. Unlike DAO, however, DAI  provides you with a convincing reason why you might want to do it - having Gaspard on the throne and supporting you will give you a stronger army, at least that's what the situation suggestes.

You *can* still do it because you're simply evil, but "evil for evil's sake" is not a very convincing character trait. The temptation of evil lies in that it pays off in tangible benefits, most of the time. Anything more is petty or stupid. Thus for me, the choice whether I want to be evil for evil's sake is not meaningful. The choice, however, if I want to let something bad happen in order to gain a specific benefit, that is meaningful.

 

The decisions in a game with a roleplaying dimension are designed so that you can express who your character is, and I contend that DAI allows for far more subtlety than DAO in that regard. That "evil for evil's sake" and "good outcome with no downsides" are largely absent allows for more variation within the range of reasonable decisions that don't make you stupid or villainous.

 

As for coming out of things smelling like roses, your Inquisition can have that at the end of the game, but may I ask how believable that is? When has that ever been true of any power? There are also several war table operations that can have rather satisfying outcomes and no downsides, depending on who you choose for the operation, and everyone's happy if you...

Spoiler

"exile" the Avvar tribe to Tevinter.

 

@hangmans tree:

I find it funny how some people lament the good old times of good roleplaying and bemoan the newer style with supposedly less substance. You know, I've seen it all. I was there when AD&D came out - I recall how difficult it was to import the rulebooks back then - I've seen the first computer implementations of roleplaying games and followed every major step of crpg evolution since then. And I see what Bioware attempts with DAI as commendable. The flashy combat is just decoration to pull players in, and as for being fast-paced - it's significantly slower-paced than DA2.

Where I agree with you is that the dialogue system is not conducive to depth, because the paraphrasing makes it impossible to adress complex topics in a less than simplistic way. However: which game except Planescape:Torment (and Fallout New Vegas to a lesser degree) has ever done more? Certainly not Bioware's games. I will continue to fight the paraphrasing because of that, but I also see that DAI attempts more meaningful decisions with the tools it has, and it doesn't do too badly.

[Corto81]

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. 

 

 

Agreed.

 

It is an RPG. A shallow one.

Again, it's a much better "game" than an "RPG".

[ZipZap2000]

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

Spoiler

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

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

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

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

 

Some good points here

 

I'd say there's a lack of options in this one too, even though i think it's a great game, look at Skyrim for an example. You can be anything, to anyone, anywhere, at a time of your choosing. Want to be a thief? Be one. Want to be gay? Be gay. Want to be an Assassin? Become the best there was. Like evil? Worship it if you like, I wouldn't recommend it though. There is no requirement to be any of those things however in order to access the main story's content or characters. Be what you like, even a giant cat. Hell i dragged a guy i didn't like out of town and cut his head off just because i didn't like him.

 

That's not to say this is a bad RPG it works well but it lacks the freedom that let's you choose what you want for your character, rather than have it imposed on you. But then that's how Bioware works anyway. Not like you could side with Cerberus by choice in the ME trilogy is it? 

 

In the end it''s strength is it's story and characters same as always, this time with improved combat.  You shouldn't go into one of these games thinking it's an in depth RPG experience when it's clearly an action RPG. Some people set themselves up for disappointment.

[Lianaar]

I still fail to see how Skyrim is a good RPG. I mean, I married a werewolf, who in that moment turned into a housewife  baking cake for me, for he can't have his little wife go out killing enemies with empty belly, can he?
It was ridiculous. Marriage killed the personality instantly. If a table top plotter did that to me, I would instantly check if the character is under some demon's or any magical influence or if I was for not noticing what the person I marry really is. I didn't have that option in Skyrim at all. I had to accept, that yes, this untrusting werewolf who hated me as soon as he saw me had this hope of raising kids and making cakes all this time, and I didn't even notice!

That is not good character interaction, nor good story telling. And regreatfully Skyrim was full of things like that.

A fully open world is not a good story RPG wise. Because: why the hell should I do that? Just because it is quest written on it? It doesn't motivate my character to do anything, because for my character there is no tag written on it. Just for me, the player.

 

There is one thing in which DA:O excelled, despite being the least favourite of the 3 DA games for me: making you motivated. From the moment one, it made you interested, evoked feelings and made you want to pursue a goal. This is where Skyrim fails (for me at least drastically). DA:II also instantly gave motivation to my character. DA:I takes a bit of time for the character to find its place and it takes a bit of time to get to a point where I know why she is actually doing things instead of just not giving a damn. But what is better in DA:I then the origins is, that you have more choice in answering this why and finding a version that fits your character the most. (I wish there was just 5 minutes prior to game start, where it tells me what the hell I am doing in Haven. That would have drastically improved involvement value in the first section of the game for me.)

 

I surely hope that the next DA game will not resemble Skyrim, but lets me join a story.

Disclaimer: yes, there are typos, and yep, it is an opinion on my own side, not universal truth.

[Ieldra]

Some good points here

 

I'd say there's a lack of options in this one too, even though i think it's a great game, look at Skyrim for an example. You can be anything, to anyone, anywhere, at a time of your choosing. Want to be a thief? Be one. Want to be gay? Be gay. Want to be an Assassin? Become the best there was. Like evil? Worship it if you like, I wouldn't recommend it though. There is no requirement to be any of those things however in order to access the main story's content or characters. Be what you like, even a giant cat. Hell i dragged a guy i didn't like out of town and cut his head off just because i didn't like him.

 

That's not to say this is a bad RPG it works well but it lacks the freedom that let's you choose what you want for your character, rather than have it imposed on you. But then that's how Bioware works anyway. Not like you could side with Cerberus by choice in the ME trilogy is it? 

 

In the end it''s strength is it's story and characters same as always, this time with improved combat.  You shouldn't go into one of these games thinking it's an in depth RPG experience when it's clearly an action RPG. Some people set themselves up for disappointment.

Well, DAI *is* somewhat in-depth in its character-expression. More than its predecessors and *way* more than ME. What is lacks is the freedom to play as wide a range of characters as Skyrim because your "career" is predetermined, but that's what you need for a strong story. I don't think it's fair to criticize DAI for something it never wanted to be. In comparison, "my decisions feel meaningless", that's a strong criticisim because it aims at the heart of what DAI wants to be.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

While the quality of the world simulation does affect the roleplaying dimension - because it makes it easier or harder to act as your character - the same is not true of the attribute and skill mechanics. In fact, the more complex these mechanics are, the more you risk that they get in the way of roleplaying. Complex mechanics are for tactical simulation, not roleplaying. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to mistake the former for the latter.

 

Note that I do like more in-depth tactical simulation and wish that DAI had more of it, but roleplaying it is not.

 

Attributes and skills can be defining features of a character just as much as personality traits are, it depends on they are integrated into the basic system. I'm not advocating that we need to be able to increase attributes on level up, but at least defining our starting attributes independently from our class choice would have been nice (in fact in many PnP systems I prefer you rarely get to raise your attributes during a character's life).

Skills, on the other hand, are something I want to be able to choose more freely. In that regard, DA:O handled things much better than DA 2 or DA:I, I could be an agile warrior wielding a longsword & shortsword, etc. Was it necessarily the best possible route to take for the character? No, but I had the option to do it.

 

 

@Kendaric Varkellen:  Interesting - I'd prefer these things to be totally unpresent unless they're going to matter.

 

Immersion is "nice" - but people really only want it to a point.  So then the question becomes:  "To what point do you immerse your audience in ambient nature..."
 

You're not going to get sick if you stay out in the rain too long... or get frostbite if you slog through snow for endless hours... and even day/night cycles are horrible when you never get tired.

 

The village of Smalltown isn't going to have crop failure if there's a lot of snow... or a flood if there's a lot of rain... or a drought if there's none.

 

Anyone looking to find fault can literally go on endlessly with the nebulous argument of "immersion".

 

@Medhia_Nox:

 

World logic & immersion go beyond that, however. Take, for example, the scene where you first meet Mother Giselle and she talks about mages being present who can heal the soldier's wounds. Healing magic exists (and always has been a part in previous games), yet my own mage as well as most mage companions are incapable of using it. Now I fully understand why they wanted to limit healing magic, but it could have been handled a lot better (high mana cost, long cooldown timer, etc.) without breaking the internal logic of the setting.

 

As for stuff like getting sick when slogging through rain or generally being exposed to weather conditions, that's not something that's needed (it would be realistic, of course, but it's not relevant to the story being told). Red lyrium exposure, on the other hand, should have had negative effects as red lyrium and it's effect is a major part of the plot since DA2. Even something like a war table operation to procure containment boxes like Varric's (if he kept his shard) would have helped in keeping it in line with the world/plot logic.

A day/night cycle is important in open world settings simply to show the passage of time. From a pure storytelling perspective it's of course detrimental, which is why BioWare didn't include it as they use lighting to set the mood for certain areas and scenes. The way they handle it, it makes the world seem like a stage rather than an actual world.

 

Also, I still like the game despite what I view as flaws, aside from the combat which is too flashy to be enjoyable for me, but that's a different matter.