173 réponses à ce sujet

[Cette]

There is a difference between the games most people on this forum like and the games that are respected on the Codex. It's very simple.

The Codex likes games where you have to engage your brain. Where your own gray matter as a player is the Awesome Button. Games like DA:I can almost be played on autopilot. There is no strategy in terms of mapping out your character's development, and there is no need for tactics in combat.

Games like DA:I are fine for what they are — mindless hack and slash romance simulators — but they will never be classic RPGs because they don't require you to use your brain.

Did you really pop in here just to say we all only like bioware games because we're too
uninterested in engaging our brains to enjoy proper RPG's? Because that's amazing. And incredibly illustrative of the issue with that site's outlook.

I think if you'd look thoroughly you'd find plenty of people who like both this game AND the ones you're championing.

He'll even a number of thee mechanical complaints voiced there are somewhat widely shared here. But it can be expressed without the shitty condescending attitude.

[Eelectrica]

Did you really pop in here just to say we all only like bioware games because we're too
uninterested in engaging our brains to enjoy proper RPG's? Because that's amazing. And incredibly illustrative of the issue with that site's outlook.

I think if you'd look thoroughly you'd find plenty of people who like both this game AND the ones you're championing.

He'll even a number of thee mechanical complaints voiced there are somewhat widely shared here. But it can be expressed without the shitty condescending attitude.

That's not how i read the comment at all.

I'm pretty much done with DAI for now untill DLC hits, or they turn the corner and make MP good. In the meantime I'm still looking forward to Pillars of Eternity and Torment tides of Numenerra, and another playthrough of D:OS when they actually finish making it.

Hopefully Witcher 3 delivers as well. It better bloody deliver. LOL

Different styles of RPG's. Liking on style or all of them doesn't really say anything about the player.

[Greetsme]

You're right. I see the light now. I only like DA:I because I'm an unwashed pleb incapable of critical thought. I'm going to burn my copy of A Theory of Justice and go roll around in the mud; that's more appropriate for my tiny, ape-like brain. 

You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself, everyone is entitled to like what ever it is that they like, and I'm sure that you are a really nice person at heart.

[naughty99]

That's not what was said.

Where exactly in the game is much thought required?

It's not the astrarium puzzles.

It's not the sentence puzzles in Hissing wastes or the lever puzzle in the Plains.

It's not the combat, so where exactly is the point in the game where the player has to take a step back and actually think for a minute or two on how to proceed?

 

Mindless fun action games aren't necessarily a bad thing either.

doesn't get more mindless than a game like Borderlands, but it's still fun.

 

Devious traps and puzzles can be a fun part of RPGs, but role playing does not mean solving puzzles or using your brain to memorize THAC0 tables. In a pen and paper RPG or video game RPG, when you are "playing the role," you are developing a concept of your character and choosing to take actions that you think your character would take.

 

The more freedom to go where you think your character would want to go, make choices you think your character would want to make, specialize in what you think your character would want to specialize in, etc., the more opportunity for role playing.

 

Haven't had a chance to play DA:I yet, so I can't comment on the gameplay, but it seems there are more options for customizing your character and more choices in some ways than the previous games.

 

As for having to think strategically, I found DA2 lacking in a lot of areas, but the combat was significantly more challenging on Nightmare than DA:O, and I played both games entirely in the tactical view, micromanaging every party member action with the A.I. tactics disabled. I'm hoping the combat in DA:I will also be challenging on this setting.

[KaiserShep]

That's not what was said.

Where exactly in the game is much thought required?

It's not the astrarium puzzles.

It's not the sentence puzzles in Hissing wastes or the lever puzzle in the Plains.

It's not the combat, so where exactly is the point in the game where the player has to take a step back and actually think for a minute or two on how to proceed?

 

Mindless fun action games aren't necessarily a bad thing either.

doesn't get more mindless than a game like Borderlands, but it's still fun.

 

Puzzles aside (I love the astrariums btw), how much you have to think about certain things in the game kind of depends on how much you care about the story's little details and such. For example, look at how you handle the Grey Warden missions on the war table. These things are sometimes maligned as being a cheap addition to the game around here, but it's not that far a throw from some of the old fashioned text-based quests. If you don't care about the outcome, and don't care how your organization is regarded in the epilogue, then obviously none of these things matter and you'd just choose whichever adviser has the least amount of time to complete it without much thought at all. The same is true if you don't care about who you choose to support in Orlais, the judgments you make at Skyhold, whether or not you drink from the Well of Sorrows, etc..

 

Anyway, I never really had these games ever make me step back and give me a big moment of pause, mainly because I usually had an optimal outcome, at least in the case of Origins. The only one that really gives you the twist is the Harrowmont/Bhelen decision, and is more rewarding for more thorough players, since it's the only part of the entire game that paints a fairly complicated picture.

[Nefla]

Did you really pop in here just to say we all only like bioware games because we're too
uninterested in engaging our brains to enjoy proper RPG's? Because that's amazing. And incredibly illustrative of the issue with that site's outlook.

I think if you'd look thoroughly you'd find plenty of people who like both this game AND the ones you're championing.

He'll even a number of thee mechanical complaints voiced there are somewhat widely shared here. But it can be expressed without the shitty condescending attitude.

 

My tiny brain struggles a lot with "words" and "reading", so clearly that post shot past my head like an arrow. See, I read things like: "The Codex likes games where you have to engage your brain. Where your own gray matter as a player " as a dig at the intelligence of players who enjoy DA:I and a nice reacharound for the Codex. Silly me. I'll try not to read between the lines so much in the future. 

I definitely think you guys are overreacting to that statement. It's the same as saying "I prefer games with player skill based combat rather than character skill based combat." It's saying I prefer a game where I control every hit or dodge and success is up to my reflexes rather than character stats, it's not saying "people who play ____ kind of game suck at combat." DA:I doesn't require complex reasoning or thought, that doesn't mean that people who are intelligent can't like it or have fun with it. (not everything has to test your abilities). DA:I wasn't a mental challenge in any way. There were no intricate plots to uncover and figure out, no challenging puzzles, no moral quandaries, etc...it was all very cut and dry, the choices were always A vs B where neither is wrong or morally questionable. There was no consequence for anything you did.

[atlantico]

The BSN isn't a hive mind; but from what I can see the Codex is more of a gathering of likeminded people.

 

A review is still just the opinion of one person, hopefully decently explained, and not the conclusion of a hive mind. Or even a gathering of likeminded people.

 

The Codex reviewer didn't like DA:I at all. That sentiment is shared by plenty of people, such as myself, who never read or post or are members of the Codex. 

[Eelectrica]

Devious traps and puzzles can be a fun part of RPGs, but role playing does not mean solving puzzles or using your brain to memorize THAC0 tables. In a pen and paper RPG or video game RPG, when you are "playing the role," you are developing a concept of your character and choosing to take actions that you think your character would take.

 

The more freedom to go where you think your character would want to go, make choices you think your character would want to make, specialize in what you think your character would want to specialize in, etc., the more opportunity for role playing.

 

Haven't had a chance to play DA:I yet, so I can't comment on the gameplay, but it seems there are more options for customizing your character and more choices in some ways than the previous games.

There are a number of dialogue choices throughout the game that can help define your character. War table to an extent, be it militaristic, diplomatic or sneaksy spy.

Different ways of speccing the character of course, but lets just say other games give more choice for character specs.

[Cyonan]

There is a difference between the games most people on this forum like and the games that are respected on the Codex. It's very simple.

 

The Codex likes games where you have to engage your brain. Where your own gray matter as a player is the Awesome Button. Games like DA:I can almost be played on autopilot. There is no strategy in terms of mapping out your character's development, and there is no need for tactics in combat. 

 

Games like DA:I are fine for what they are — mindless hack and slash romance simulators — but they will never be classic RPGs because they don't require you to use your brain.

 

That's nice and all but they still have things like New Vegas at #8 on their top 70 RPGs of all time, which really doesn't require a great amount of thought to do well in.

 

Or KotoR, in which I didn't even know what half the terms meant when I first played it and did just fine. Even playing through KotoR 2 now that I know what things are, all I'm really doing is spamming Power Attack to win. I don't even know if it's optimal(probably not), but it doesn't matter because I haven't come anywhere near death yet.

[Eelectrica]

Puzzles aside (I love the astrariums btw), how much you have to think about certain things in the game kind of depends on how much you care about the story's little details and such. For example, look at how you handle the Grey Warden missions on the war table. These things are sometimes maligned as being a cheap addition to the game around here, but it's not that far a throw from some of the old fashioned text-based quests. If you don't care about the outcome, and don't care how your organization is regarded in the epilogue, then obviously none of these things matter and you'd just choose whichever adviser has the least amount of time to complete it without much thought at all. The same is true if you don't care about who you choose to support in Orlais, the judgments you make at Skyhold, whether or not you drink from the Well of Sorrows, etc..

 

Anyway, I never really had these games ever make me step back and give me a big moment of pause, mainly because I usually had an optimal outcome, at least in the case of Origins. The only one that really gives you the twist is the Harrowmont/Bhelen decision, and is more rewarding for more thorough players, since it's the only part of the entire game that paints a fairly complicated picture.

I actually enjoyed the Astrariums too. I just wanted some tough ones.

 

And yeah the war table at times, who to pick for the phased ones, but a lot of it was just defining the inquisition, pick Josie more often than not for a more diplomatic inquistion. Sending the wrong person in to do war table missions did sometimes gave hilarious results so that was cool.

[Original182]

Folks I do not say this with hate, I loved Dragon Age: Origins and somewhat like Dragon Age 2.

 

But Dragon Age Inquisition really feels drawn out. Like it is a game meant to be played for 100 hours, but they artificially stretched it to 500 hours.

 

70 hours in, and I am still in in Emerald Graves. I cannot help but want to complete every side-quest, but there are times when I find the open-world really tedious.

 

I am barely enjoying Inquisition.

 

In contrast, Dragon Age: Origins was a very fun ride. It is an epic story of a Warden killing an Archdemon. The story is simple but effective, you need to secure alliances with almost all the races, and at the same time, get to explore the lore of that faction or race. I learnt a lot about Ferelden, Templars, Mages, Dwarf Caste system, distinction between Dalish Elves and City Elves, etc.

 

Inquisition however feels like a jumbled mess. I don't want to read all codexes to learn about the lore. I want to play the game to learn about the lore.

 

It's just a little bit of everything. I liked the party selection system of Origins, where if you click on a party member, they would then do an animation. This "tarot cards" version of the party selection is just terrible.

I liked the simplicity of talking to party members around the campfire in Origins. In Inquisition, even with the fast travel, traveling around your base is just too tedious.

 

Am I doing things wrong? I feel like it was a downward spiral, Origins being the best, but it slowly degraded in quality to Inquisition. Leliana was more interesting in Origins than in Inquisition. But I am only 70 hours in and I haven't finished the game yet, just trying to finish all side quests.

[Cette]

I definitely think you guys are overreacting to that statement. It's the same as saying "I prefer games with player skill based combat rather than character skill based combat." It's saying I prefer a game where I control every hit or dodge and success is up to my reflexes rather than character stats, it's not saying "people who play ____ kind of game suck at combat." DA:I doesn't require complex reasoning or thought, that doesn't mean that people who are intelligent can't like it or have fun with it. (not everything has to test your abilities). DA:I wasn't a mental challenge in any way. There were no intricate plots to uncover and figure out, no challenging puzzles, no moral quandaries, etc...it was all very cut and dry, the choices were always A vs B where neither is wrong or morally questionable. There was no consequence for anything you did.

See the problem here isn't so much message as tone.

Same as the review I don't actually disagree with a large number of their points but the constant little digs make it all come off as petty.

I'd like a crunchier more tactical game with less screwing about in wilderness zones as well but I can say that without implying other people don't like using their brains if they do like it.

Also @Kaisershep you never did give me context on"storyfag."

[Original182]

See the problem here isn't so much message as tone.

Same as the review I don't actually disagree with a large number of their points but the constant little digs make it all come off as petty.

I'd like a crunchier more tactical game with less screwing about in wilderness zones as well but I can say that without implying other people don't like using their brains if they do like it.

 

Yes I preferred the tactical game of the first 2 Dragon Age. I don't understand why they made it play like Skyrim or Witcher. Dragon Age has always been a tactical RPG.

[Realmzmaster]

Social interaction is the key element in any tabletop RPG session. Combat is secondary to social interaction between the party members and the world. The early crpgs had no problem getting the combat part fairly right, but they sucked at any social interaction because all the members of the party were created by the gamer. So the gamer basically roleplayed and head canoned all the characters. Which a lot of times gamers simply ended up with variations of themselves.

 

Games by Origin (the later Ultimas) and Bioware games (BG1 and BG2) started to break that mold. Social Interaction  between party members really came to the forth in BG1 and especially BG2, because the party members were now being written by the writers of the developer. The game took on more a tabletop session that way within the limitations of the media.

 

My tabletop play group would be bored to tears if the play session's focus was primarily combat. The adventure had to be flushed out so that the group could do actual roleplaying. That could include anything from puzzles to fast talking the group out of a combat situation. 

 

I remember the book Roleplaying Mastery by Gary Gygax. It was his premise that roleplaying was more than just leveling up the character and combat. . Social Interaction was the cornerstone of the roleplaying session. If any rule got in the way of the group having fun the rule needed revision or allow the players to have house rules.

 

I remember very few crpgs that require much actual thought. The only one that comes to mind is Ultima IV because of its different character creation system

 

So what is meant by actual thought? If you are talking about point allocation for stats or picking skills then DAI has that. You pick what active skills and passive skills to unlock. That may not be what some gamers want but it serves the same purpose. Picking, finding, buying or crafting gear with stat boosters adds to the stat allocation.

 

The astrarium puzzles require thought especially if one is not good at puzzles and does not wish to run to the guide, wikis or forums. It is much like the bridge puzzle in DAO or the riddles. Or are gamers saying that those did not require thought? The sentence puzzle require logical thought to put them in order.

 

I find it interesting that because some people found it did not require much thought that it must apply to everyone else.

 

So what is meant by actual thought?

[KaiserShep]

Folks I do not say this with hate, I loved Dragon Age: Origins and somewhat like Dragon Age 2.

 

But Dragon Age Inquisition really feels drawn out. Like it is a game meant to be played for 100 hours, but they artificially stretched it to 500 hours.

 

70 hours in, and I am still in in Emerald Graves. I cannot help but want to complete every side-quest, but there are times when I find the open-world really tedious.

 

I am barely enjoying Inquisition.

 

In contrast, Dragon Age: Origins was a very fun ride. It is an epic story of a Warden killing an Archdemon. The story is simple but effective, you need to secure alliances with almost all the races, and at the same time, get to explore the lore of that faction or race. I learnt a lot about Ferelden, Templars, Mages, Dwarf Caste system, distinction between Dalish Elves and City Elves, etc.

 

Inquisition however feels like a jumbled mess. I don't want to read all codexes to learn about the lore. I want to play the game to learn about the lore.

 

It's just a little bit of everything. I liked the party selection system of Origins, where if you click on a party member, they would then do an animation. This "tarot cards" version of the party selection is just terrible.

I liked the simplicity of talking to party members around the campfire in Origins. In Inquisition, even with the fast travel, traveling around your base is just too tedious.

 

Am I doing things wrong? I feel like it was a downward spiral, Origins being the best, but it slowly degraded in quality to Inquisition. Leliana was more interesting in Origins than in Inquisition. But I am only 70 hours in and I haven't finished the game yet, just trying to finish all side quests.

 

Yes, there is a serious imbalance in the sheer size of the zones and the amount of substantial quests you get, especially considering that the time it takes to get from point A to point B pads a lot of time. It's clearly an experiment with very mixed results, which I hope BioWare learns from and streamlines a bit in the next game to avoid this problem.

 

As for talking to companions, I'd like to see a bit of a compromise. Like, having "safe zones" where you can leisurely engage in conversation with a companion, either in a camp site, a keep, tavern or village. Although, it would be interesting to be able to have conversation engage in the distant view in a combat zone, and if something approaches, the companion cuts the dialogue short for the oncoming danger (like if Sera yelled out "Bear!" or Iron Bull "DRAGON!" lol). Not sure how well this could be done, but I'd be curious to see BioWare try.

 

As for picking party members, I just can't help but have plenty of affection for the tarot card method, but I'm a huge sucker for this kind of art style.

[Realmzmaster]

A review is still just the opinion of one person, hopefully decently explained, and not the conclusion of a hive mind. Or even a gathering of likeminded people.

 

The Codex reviewer didn't like DA:I at all. That sentiment is shared by plenty of people, such as myself, who never read or post or are members of the Codex. 

 

But this group also had this to say about DAO.

 

By Elzair

 

Dragon Age: Origins is a decent but highly-flawed game. Playing it will bring back some memories of Baldur's Gate II, but those memories will only make the game seem poorer by comparison. Mostly, playing it brings back memories of World of Warcraft, except it was less tedious. Since there are not that many RPGs released these days, you might as well give it a try. Then, go back to playing Pool of Radiance and dreaming of days of yore.

 

Also on the same site by Vault Dweller

 

And In Conclusion...

 

So, what do we get?

A generic but well designed, well thought-through world;

A generic threat that's merely a background; the game is more about you dealing with different factions than about you stopping the Blight;

Very detailed character system with some flaws;

Tactical combat wasted on filler encounters;

Standard party members setup with all the banter and drama you can expect, but this time you can kill a lot more party members, which is a must-have feature in a Bioware game;

Truly excellent quest choices and options sandwiched between a linear and not overly interesting beginning and an anticlimatic ending.

As one member of this fine establishment said:

 

"Really it seems to boil down to this: Dragon Age has undeniable flaws, some glaring, some less-so. To some, the truly brilliant moments easily outshine those flaws. To others, the brilliant moments aren't brilliant enough, or don't happen often enough, so the flaws stand-out more and bring the entire experience down. I think both perspectives are perfectly legitimate, and, like so many other things, really boil down to personal preference. And really, the "undeniable flaws with brilliant moments/features/etc." describes pretty much every great RPG I've ever played."​

 

I think that it's a good way to sum up the game. Dragon Age has flaws, and if you focus on them, you'll miss a pretty good role-playing game. It's a Bioware game, which means that it has a certain set of features that Bioware has developed into a trademark design over the last decade. However, Bioware has managed to improve and evolve that design significantly, keeping the strong story-focus, while loading in a wide range of player choices and paths, which makes it the best Bioware RPG and one of the best role-playing games in years despite the flaws.

 

You can make of the above what you will, but as I said it is easy to come up with reviews to justify either position.

 

If you really want to get the general mindset of the group simply read the comments for each review. There Hperlinks are below:

 

http://www.rpgcodex....tent.php?id=197

 

http://www.rpgcodex....tent.php?id=195

[Eelectrica]

Social interaction is the key element in any tabletop RPG session. Combat is secondary to social interaction between the party members and the world. The early crpgs had no problem getting the combat part fairly right, but they sucked at any social interaction because all the members of the party were created by the gamer. So the gamer basically roleplayed and head canoned all the characters. Which a lot of times gamers simply ended up with variations of themselves.

 

Games by Origin (the later Ultimas) and Bioware games (BG1 and BG2) started to break that mold. Social Interaction  between party members really came to the forth in BG1 and especially BG2, because the party members were now being written by the writers of the developer. The game took on more a tabletop session that way within the limitations of the media.

 

My tabletop play group would be bored to tears if the play session's focus was primarily combat. The adventure had to be flushed out so that the group could do actual roleplaying. That could include anything from puzzles to fast talking the group out of a combat situation. 

 

I remember the book Roleplaying Mastery by Gary Gygax. It was his premise that roleplaying was more than just leveling up the character and combat. . Social Interaction was the cornerstone of the roleplaying session. If any rule got in the way of the group having fun the rule needed revision or allow the players to have house rules.

 

I remember very few crpgs that require much actual thought. The only one that comes to mind is Ultima IV because of its different character creation system

 

So what is meant by actual thought? If you are talking about point allocation for stats or picking skills then DAI has that. You pick what active skills and passive skills to unlock. That may not be what some gamers want but it serves the same purpose. Picking, finding, buying or crafting gear with stat boosters adds to the stat allocation.

 

The astrarium puzzles require thought especially if one is not good at puzzles and does not wish to run to the guide, wikis or forums. It is much like the bridge puzzle in DAO or the riddles. Or are gamers saying that those did not require thought? The sentence puzzle require logical thought to put them in order.

 

I find it interesting that because some people found it did not require much thought that it must apply to everyone else.

 

So what is meant by actual thought?

I get what you're saying. I know the bridge puzzle in DA:O required that I make notes. See what effect standing on each pressure plate did, and put it together, so that required some thought at least.

 

In inquistion we have this attrition based combat system, except we seem to somehow have more ways of healing than ever before.

I know it won't happen, but in a DLC, I'd love the game to lock my party in a  dungeon or castle or whatever with no way out except to complete it. No running back to camp to restock, no healing potion crates every few steps. Mismanaging resources leads to failure. For such an area, their should be an escape route I suppose (No point in frustrating a player for having a look), but using it means that next time the dungeon is attempted you start from the beginning. Give me something that will kick my butt and make me step back and think how the hell am I going to get through this.

 

Things that required some thought in Inquisition were the treasure map quests, matching the landmarks to the map. I didn't mind those as their was more to it than following a marker.

 

A game like D:OS requires a bit of thought in terms of combat and positioning. The combat system reminds me somewhat of X-com, which is a good thing. There's more to it than holding the mouse button down, and activating a power when the cool down is ready.

I feel D:OS was let down by the story though, which apparently they're adding to in a future patch. Also some party banters are coming so that should improve that game quite a bit. Hopefully. 

 

I've played most of the Ultimas certainly from 4 up, and rate U7:TBG one of my all time favorite games, especially considering what they had to work with at the time.

I still remember the ghost town of Skara Brae with the Liche. Awesome game. I don't remember what the puzzles were like though and how much thought was required. NPC schedules, day night cycles, simple but effective crafting system.

 

But at the end of the day, not everything should require a masters degree to complete because sometimes locking a group of monsters in a static cage with one of them affected by Walking bomb can be just dumb explody fun.

[Raoni Luna]

 

But this group also had this to say about DAO.

 

By Elzair etc etc etc

 

I spent time reading some things about Origins there... and they are absolutely right. Since I've seen how they play and love REAL RPGs a mainstream flashy thing like Origins is actually like they described. The most perfect description of Origins I read in their best 70 RPGs list.

 

Thing is DA2 is a lot more worse and DAI is a level of awful not yet described by mankind... or any mortals really... perhaps not even gods have a word for it.

 

See, I play Wizardry 8 and look at the character creation and think... why can't we have such complexity these days? Or... look at Arcanum, seriously, your stats affect your dialogue GREATLY. Then they play Origins... how not complain? They played Fallout 2 and loved it... what is Origins really? Also their top is Planescape Torment, which, agreeing to them, I don't know if I can call it a RPG, but it is probably the best and most interesting storytelling game ever. So... Origins... really?

 

But when you do it the other way... you play Inquisition then you play Origins... look back and think, Origins was just promoted to godhood. It is a primitive thought really, if we please the gods of old they will perhaps hear our call and come back. Since older gods left us with this new generation then let me at least worship the least ridiculous of them, Dragon Age Origins. Because I'm not praising Witcher fixed protagonist or Inquisition lack of stats. If the old gods are dead and gone then I will worship the one of the new that carried the traditions. But this is among the AAA gods, among the lesser gods we are indie happy and completely devout.

[atlantico]

 

But this group also had this to say about DAO.

 

 

This group?

 

Some guy wrote a review. There's plenty of people who post reviews on this forum, do they speak "for the group"?

 

I'm just fascinated with this obsession over the RPGCodex and their hive-mind abilities.

[Riven326]

On the fence about some reviewers giving a more positive review than they would have if they weren't paid/working for the company/have their reporter forced into a game as a character, or on the fence about every positive review or opinion being a lie (as this thread implies)? Because while I believe some professional reviewers are compromised, I don't believe that all of them are, and I don't believe that every positive review or opinion is a lie. These forums alone should tell you how many people genuinely like the game (hell, I've argued with many of them about aspects that I found poorly done).

The former.

[Realmzmaster]

This group?

 

Some guy wrote a review. There's plenty of people who post reviews on this forum, do they speak "for the group"?

 

I'm just fascinated with this obsession over the RPGCodex and their hive-mind abilities.

 

I also said go and read the comments for each review to get the gist of how in general the people in the group think which is unlike the BSN which can be all over the map..If you read the comments they agree with the reviews.

[Realmzmaster]

I spent time reading some things about Origins there... and they are absolutely right. Since I've seen how they play and love REAL RPGs a mainstream flashy thing like Origins is actually like they described. The most perfect description of Origins I read in their best 70 RPGs list.

 

Thing is DA2 is a lot more worse and DAI is a level of awful not yet described by mankind... or any mortals really... perhaps not even gods have a word for it.

 

See, I play Wizardry 8 and look at the character creation and think... why can't we have such complexity these days? Or... look at Arcanum, seriously, your stats affect your dialogue GREATLY. Then they play Origins... how not complain? They played Fallout 2 and loved it... what is Origins really? Also their top is Planescape Torment, which, agreeing to them, I don't know if I can call it a RPG, but it is probably the best and most interesting storytelling game ever. So... Origins... really?

 

But when you do it the other way... you play Inquisition then you play Origins... look back and think, Origins was just promoted to godhood. It is a primitive thought really, if we please the gods of old they will perhaps hear our call and come back. Since older gods left us with this new generation then let me at least worship the least ridiculous of them, Dragon Age Origins. Because I'm not praising Witcher fixed protagonist or Inquisition lack of stats. If the old gods are dead and gone then I will worship the one of the new that carried the traditions. But this is among the AAA gods, among the lesser gods we are indie happy and completely devout.

 

That gets back to the definition of a real RPG which most cRPGs are not in comparison to p & P RPGs. A real RPG has social interaction between party members and the world. cRPGs like Wizardry 8 has no social interaction within the party especially when compared to the likes of the Ultimas or BG series.

 

So are you telling me that the Ultimas and BG. NWN or DAO are less of a cRPG than Wizardry 8 because they include social interaction which is the hallmark of p & p RPG?

[mickey111]

RPGcodex are no more biased than any other group of reviewers, and they're in favor of games that have some sort of nutritional value for that grey matter sitting between your ears. So look at their curator group on steam community if you're into that sort of stuff. 

[aaarcher86]

Especially if it's one of those badass industrial shop vacs. They can suck a pile of quarters like dust bunnies.

I like when you hear the crunchy noise of something getting sucked up. And then you know that spot is clean.

So validating.

[Cyonan]

RPGcodex are no more biased than any other group of reviewers, and they're in favor of games that have some sort of nutritional value for that grey matter sitting between your ears. So look at their curator group on steam community if you're into that sort of stuff. 

 

Their bias is well known. though. If a reviewer known to hate FPS games gave a FPS game a poor review, a lot of people wouldn't take it seriously. I know I certainly wouldn't use that review to judge the quality of a FPS game.

 

Plus as I mentioned before, they have plenty of games on their top 70 RPGs of all time that don't require much thought to beat.

 

Hell they put Dark Sun at #31 which I played when I was 5 years old and had no clue what 90% of the things in the game did. I think I was able to figure out that one of my party members had a healing spell by just clicking at random and realizing that it made my health go up when I used it.