173 réponses à ce sujet

[Shryke]

My earlier comment was not that people who play DA:I are stupid. Not at all. I don't think preference for any form of art should ever involve talk of that person's intelligence. What I am saying is that this game does not engage the brain, at least as much as many AAA RPGs used to. And for people who like games that do engage the brain, this game will not be enjoyable.

 

What upsets me is that so many games are heading in this direction: requiring less from the player, making things easier. Examples? Here are some trends in the AAA gaming space that I think most people would be unable to deny:

 

- Less stat management and numbers in general

- Less "meta-knowledge" required. In BG2, making a successful character required knowing what a class's strengths were, when they gained certain abilities, how they complemented other classes, etc. Since nobody is willing to read a game manual anymore (because people in general read a lot less than they used to, for whatever reason), requiring the player to have meta-knowledge about complex game systems is not very practical because they now have to acquire that knowledge in game. Requiring the player to go through a two-hour tutorial to learn the systems is annoying.

- More quest markers, minimaps, glowing things, etc.

- No character death

- Plenty of healing options that come with negligible drawbacks

- Easier puzzles

- Regenerating health

- Being able to amass way too much money

 

And the list goes on and on. Games just simply do not challenge us as much as they used to. As a person from the U.S., it seems this decline is in line with the trend regarding the quality of our educational system which, unless you go to a good charter or private school, does not challenge children anymore in the ways they need to be challenged to succeed in an increasingly globalized—and therefore increasingly competitive—job market.

 

Anyway, there's nothing really wrong with playing games that are mindless. But for those of us looking for more cerebral experience, there are increasingly fewer and fewer places to turn to. That BioWare used to be one of these places is what is lamentable. RPGs used to be a genre that would challenge the mind. 

[Phoe77]

There are plenty of ways for a game to engage your mind.  For me, Dragon Age games have always done it by encouraging the player to spend time really examining the world that the game takes place in and the issues that are a part of that world.  That kind of mental exercise is infinitely more valuable to me than creating an acceptable character build under a complex set of game rules.  Things like permanent character death take me out of the experience, while things like having to keep a close eye on my finances are simply not fun to me (unless I'm playing Sims, Civ, or some kind of city builder thing).  There is a way to reconcile an appreciation for intellectual stimulation with games like Inquisition. 

[Cyonan]

Do they even give us manuals to read anymore?

 

I won't disagree that games in general are getting easier, but I don't think that giving people stuff like a minimap or quest markers is a bad thing that "dumbs down" a game.

 

Likewise having something like stats didn't automatically engage your brain more. Often a class has 1 or 2 stats that are superior for them to the rest of the stats, which means you're probably going to dump most of your stat points into those things without thought unless you want to do a gimmick build. There are admittedly some games that don't fall into this for stat allocation.

 

There are also things which don't add much gameplay value like limited spells in Baldur's Gate when you have the ability to rest virtually anywhere in the game and immediately recharge all your spells. At that point, they might as well have just done spells to be per combat rather than per day because I never once thought about conserving my spells in that game. I knew I was one click away from having them all back.

 

I think games can stand to be more challenging, but I feel like we shouldn't need to revert to a lot of the clunky mechanics that came with the classic cRPGs just to do it.

 

Of course as I said before, playing through KotoR 2 I'm basically just spamming Power Attack to win so it's not like the old games didn't have their problems with difficulty at times =P

[Sifr]

Clearly RPG Codex has never vacuumed while listening to Queen before...

 

Spoiler

 

 

But in seriousness, while I agree with some of their criticisms about the lack of focus on the main plot of the game at times, a lot of these points seem unfair or completely nonsensical when you get down to it?

 

They moan about the inane fetch quests, something that all RPGs have? They moan about the returning tac-cam gluing you to the floor... except, you can move the camera around at any time, so what's the problem? Or that walking is "too slow"... well, we have a run button, perhaps they should have used it?

 

Exactly what was the glitch in the final image meant to be? If it's supposed to be no head for the Inquisitor, it's not true because that shot is obviously showing their leg? And if it's meant to be some clipping, then how is that different from most games? Either way, it's something I didn't notice or seems like something they were just nitpicking to be negative about?

 

[mickey111]

Clearly RPG Codex has never vacuumed while listening to Queen before...

 

Spoiler

 

 

But in seriousness, while I agree with some of their criticisms about the lack of focus on the main plot of the game at times, a lot of these points seem unfair or completely nonsensical when you get down to it?

 

They moan about the inane fetch quests, something that all RPGs have? They moan about the returning tac-cam gluing you to the floor... except, you can move the camera around at any time, so what's the problem? 

 

 

Who doesn't complain about these in DAI? could replace ''RPG codex'' with ''BSN'' and none would be the wiser

[Sifr]

Who doesn't complain about these in DAI? could replace ''RPG codex'' with ''BSN'' and none would be the wiser

 

True, but us Bioware fans are known for being hard to please, so it's expected? Remember how FemShep went from officially blonde to a redhead, because even though we voted for it, we didn't like the result and made them do it again?

[Raoni Luna]

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?

I really didn't understand why make this point if I said nothing about interaction... but I will answer anyway even without understanding.

 

1. I do not interact with party members in game while playing PnP, sometimes, just to please the GM I pretend to care and then I simulate some rivalry or something like that. The guy loved me, he said that I was the only one into his story. Know why? This is how you play PnP, a brief lesson: You make your character sheet and try to make it work by throwing dices. Ah yes, there is some kind of story and people around you, necessary evil, you can lessen this evil buy ordering pizza, coke and talking about another things like sports and relationships or even phylosophy.

 

2. I understand perfectly that for some people RPG is about living a fantasy. And because I understand that I understand all the points you defend. It is just not how I will ever see RPG. I am unable to put myself in another world by whatever means, be it books, movies or games. Nothing ever matches my imagination, I learned it early, so I just quit fantasy that is not my imagination and treat it mechanically.

 

3.I don't care if a game claims it is RPG or FIFA 1750, These labels mean nothing for me. D&D from the first version had various classes and races and this is what matter. Different GMs tell different stories, some shallow, some deep, some interesting, some not, never the quality of a story or the quality of party interation defined RPG. You can play Pathfinder with a group of dual cursed oracles all blind and deaf, skip most party interactions and just roll dice if you want, it won't be less RPG.

 

Summarizing: You really should stop thinking about what defines RPG for you, how usually is a session, and all other things and focus on the defining aspects of RPG, no let's be honest, D&D. D&D with a lousy story is still D&D, D&D with 4 shy boys and a gorgeous woman in the table so that all boys refuse to open their mouth to talk between them and with the girl is still D&D, but take away the mechanics and it is not D&D anymore. So as much as you convince yourself about what RPG "truly is", the raw fact is that it is JUST a bunch of rules ro roll from d2 to d100 and check for success or failure. EVERYTHING ELSE is optional.

Why not face the truth? Why keep talking about this and that as if it was core part of the RPG experience when it is not? I know it is, in a sense, I know that it is how it was born, it is how everybody plays and so on. But it can only be called RPG because of the rules. Story alone do not define RPG, rules alone do. If I make a combat module in NWN with no dialogue and just combat it is still RPG, it is still D&D. If I tell a story from Forgotten Realms it is not RPG, it is not D&D.

As much as I understand your love for the oldies and how they were made, and I completely understand that you think that for cRPGs we should take into consideration the great old ones, for me it is not like that. Be it Pen and Paper or cRPG, I see no other feature to differentiate a story, a book or a movie from a game except for the rules.

 

And yes, I perfectly understand that rules govern PCs and NPCs interactions too, but I'm pretty sure that if you release a RPG with only those it will be called dating simulator because RPG, specially for those who come from D&D is essentially combat. D&D, PnP included, is hack and slash. Take away combat from D&D and see how many people will play. Or just ask how many people play it without combat.

 

I know that talking about RPG discarding some elements is blasphemy, but that's how it is. Now if you want to say you can't imagine a RPG without interactions or a good story, ok, it is your likes and dislikes. But saying things like interaction and story say if a game is RPG or not makes no sense at all. You have the rules, it is RPG. You don't have, it is not. Everything else can be tradition of RPGs, important, vital, whatever you want to say, but they do not define it. So if I open DA toolkit and make an archery competition without a story and without character interaction, as long as it uses the same mechanics of the core game it is RPG. Because that is what RPG is, a set of mechanics.

"I will not consider a RPG". Ok. But then, two questions, no jokes, I want the real deffinition, not subjectivity:
1 - If create this same archery competition in PnP using DnD 3.5 rules, it is not RPG because there is no story and no interaction?
2 - If I tell a deep story where characters interact among them, is it RPG? So, any book is RPG? It features stories and interactions.

Please understand that even if you absolutely love and can't live without it (and I'm not saying thats the case here) it does not make it a game. Game is a set of rules, without this set it is not a game. All other characteristics are secondary to the rules.
As my final effort to try to make you understand it:
1 - If I play basketball using only my feet, is it still baketball?
2 - If I do play with a soccer ball without rules, is it still soccer?

 

It is not an invention of mine...

game

ɡām/

noun

noun: game; plural noun: games

1.

a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
RULES

Now saying X game is RPG and Y game is not because of story, is like saying baseball is not baseball when played by unskilled people. It is just ugly baseball. But if you change the rules it is not baseball anymore. And if you remove rules it is not even a game anymore. I'm not saying X is RPG, or Y is not, not in this post, what i'm trying to say is that the ONLY thing that defines the RPG are the rules. How you use them, in which context and how good you use them matters not. So unless the game system states that my barbarian cannot wear her hammer without talking to the fellow dwarf there is no problem in not having interactions. Also unless the rules states that I can't adventure without a reason, there is no need for story.

 

So please, there is no point in bringing story and interaction to the table when the subject is RPG. It is of course a preference for most people who play, but it is not by any means needed. You can say it is weird, boring, pointless, ridiculous, anything, and I can even agree with you probably, but no, story and interaction do not make a RPG, combat rules do. RPG is that very useful list of stat X t bonus Y for 3.5 and the other for Pathfinder. Is my friend building his Paladin to deal over 500 damage in one round with his spear. Is pun pun. Is the rogues craying for being useless. This is unavoidably RPG. Stories and interaction are not, they can be RPG, book, movie, theater, or whatever.

 

I really expect to not go into this again, but I'm really shocked that people don't understand it. Nothing against people disagreeing that you can have RPGs without story and interaction, seriously, nothing. But insisting to talk about them as if they defined anything is just wrong.

And before you say about the story rules and the interaction rules, as I said, they can be removed without consequences as the game never dictates how the story and interactions must be, how much shall a game have of both, or anything else. Arguably you can play without combat too, specially non D&D (and D&D like) systems, and I know that, but we are in a forum of Bioware, Dragon Age Inquisition, is there even a point in saying anything about non combat? I would say the same in a D&D forum. Anyway, even without combat my point stands you can skip interactions with other players and the story and just do mechanically. How? GM says at the beginning: You are free do whatever you want. You can then choose to seduce and have sex with an NPC without ANY acting, just mechanically saying "I want to use my bluff skill to convince her to have sex with me". It is still RPG, there was no story and no interaction with party members, and it is still RPG because it used the rules of RPG.

I know there are still holes here and there and people will still try to think story and interactions with party members are part of what RPG is,but they are not. You can perfectly play RPG, aka use a given set of rules, without a good story, or any story for that matter, and without interacting with party members. So my point is that for me, and I guess my opinion is in accord to the definition of game, you can make anything you want, any kind of game you want, but only the set of rules define the game as RPG. If you have sex with your wife rolling d20 for success and using a D&D character sheet it is D&D for me. Even if your only interaction is moaning.

This post is not about likes and dislikes is about what defines RPG and what does not. I'm not saying I like this or that, I'm saying it is what it is.

[DanteYoda]

"RPG Codex hates Bioware, their opinion is invalid"

Wow just wow... for people like you these games really is a religion huh..

[Echelon5101]

Okay, guys, listen, GUYS LISTEn, what if, LISTEN, so GUYS LISTEN what if LISTEN GUYs okay so what if I went into a forum, full of thousands of people, who talk about a game that I hate, about a game I hate, made by developers of a game that I hate, and I...told them I didn't like the game? Wouldn't that be interesting? And not a waste of my and everyone else's time?????

[DanteYoda]

At last a truthful review.

 

http://www.rpgcodex....ent.php?id=9752

That review is pretty spot on and funny, i just hope bioware takes in all this feedback at some point.

[Dreamer]

You people, and your "red vs blue" team dynamic, are nauseating.

[Realmzmaster]

 

snip

 

 

Once again you are trying to state your opinion as fact and it never will be. The rules are simply a framework otherwise groups would not have house rules that can significantly deviate from the rules as written or given by the publisher. The DM if he or she decides can change the rules to fit the story or encounter as long as the group agrees. If the rules are set in stone why is the DM given so much leeway in deciding everything about the playing session including changing the rules by ignoring dice roll outcomes 

 

Why is it possible to craft an entire adventure and story with absolutely no combat which consist of nothing but the group playing roles.

 

Rules lawyers never survived long in the tabletop sessions I gamed in. The gamers had gathered to together to have fun and interact with each other while running through the adventure or story created by the DM. Rules lawyers like to argue the points of the rules with the group and the DM. The group had adventures where quest points where only given for non-violent resolution methods and combat meant failure of the adventure.

 

So gamers had to come up with different ways to resolve the conflict other than combat. That meant roleplaying and using the clues provided by the DM's descriptions. That simply drove gamers who were hell bent on trying to enforce the rules as written on the group out of the group. Rules do not make a roleplaying tabletop session that is reserved for people.

[Cette]

@ Raoni Luna

A: I'm pretty sure that the you know playing of roles is what makes a thing an RPG or not. He'll even what rules define D&D specifically are incredibly variable what the many editions. Arguably it could even be considered D&D to some extent if you're playing a different system but doing so in say Faerun or the dark sun setting.

B: I can't say with that attitude you'd last long with any of the groups I've played with.

[frankf43]

Role Playing was around long before J R Tolkien wrote LotR never mind Gary Gygax modifying its lore to create DnD.

 

Role playing is all about taking on a role and playing the part of the character and making choices as you believe they would make them. Role play has been around as long as people have had the imagination to see the fun in being somebody else for a short while.

 

If you build a character that looks like you and thinks like you even if you are in a fantasy environment you are not Role Playing you are just inserting yourself into a fantasy game. The role play comes from taking on somebody else's character and behaving how you think they would behave for a number of hours.

 

This is one of the reasons that I play as a female character or elves and dwarves instead of human males as it breaks the concept that the character I'm playing is actually me. This gives me more freedom to play as somebody else.

 

The idea that role play is about the game mechanics or character customizability is so wrong it's scary. People are completely missing the whole concept of what role play actually is.

[mickey111]

From reading BSN, I thought RPing was a hot chick simulator.

[Ieldra]

I just read the review. While I don't agree with the conclusion and enjoyed the exploration rather more than the reviewer, I think Bioware should read the story and roleplaying section. The review makes some valid points there.

[frankf43]

I'm glad you've enlightened me.

Here I thought RPing was just bashing buttons and looking at pixelated breasts.

Maybe you already knew this fair enough but far too many people on here think Role Play is about game mechanics or customization and without certain game mechanics or customizable states a game can't be a role play game.

[Cyonan]

Maybe you already knew this fair enough but far too many people on here think Role Play is about game mechanics or customization and without certain game mechanics or customizable states a game can't be a role play game.

 

The problem is that the definition of "taking on a role of a character and making choices as them" is so ambiguous that you can call virtually any video game a RPG.

 

Let's say I'm playing a game as a scientist during an experiment gone horribly wrong. I have to make my way through the research facility in an attempt to stop what is going on, and during all that time I get an arsenal of weapons and can choose how I go about fighting all the battles. If I want to, I can kill the local security guards and take their weapons and ammo or I can recruit them to help me for a time. The same goes with other scientists, but they don't fight and instead can offer minor amounts of healing for you.

 

Is that choice enough to make that game a "role-playing game"?

 

If not then the main thing that needs defining is just how much choice do you need to have for your character before it's considered role-playing.

[mickey111]

The problem is that the definition of "taking on a role of a character and making choices as them" is so ambiguous that you can call virtually any video game a RPG.

 

Let's say I'm playing a game as a scientist during an experiment gone horribly wrong. I have to make my way through the research facility in an attempt to stop what is going on, and during all that time I get an arsenal of weapons and can choose how I go about fighting all the battles. If I want to, I can kill the local security guards and take their weapons and ammo or I can recruit them to help me for a time. The same goes with other scientists, but they don't fight and instead can offer minor amounts of healing for you.

 

Is that choice enough to make that game a "role-playing game"?

 

If not then the main thing that needs defining is just how much choice do you need to have for your character before it's considered role-playing.

...why? I feel it's an exercise in pedantry and that people are just being anal debating genre definitions at all...

[Cyonan]

...why? I feel it's an exercise in pedantry and that people are just being anal debating genre definitions at all...

 

You're right.

 

It was so much better when this thread was arguing over if we should take RPGCodex opinions seriously or not.

[Shryke]

At the end of the day, games should have fun gameplay. Whether a game is an RPG or not, whether the main focus in the game is role-playing a character, the gameplay should be fun. It is a game, after all. The gameplay needs to be there. To me, more complex mechanics gives more possible choices to make, which in turn gives the game more depth. This results in better satisfaction for the gamer.

 

I do not believe DA:I gives the player the ability to make a sufficient number of meaningful choices, whether in the "gameplay" component of the game — i.e. combat, (which the game forces you to spend a considerable amount of time doing) — or the interactive movie aspect (dialogue with characters). As such, I believe that it fails as a fun game when compared to many others that have come before it (Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate II, Fallout: New Vegas, Shadowrun Returns, Divinity: Original Sin).

 

I realize that many of you disagree. What I wish is that those of you who do would state reasons why you disagree instead of constantly downplaying the criticism people are leveling at this game. What aspects of this game do you really feel makes for a fun experience?

[Elhanan]

At the end of the day, games should have fun gameplay. Whether a game is an RPG or not, whether the main focus in the game is role-playing a character, the gameplay should be fun. It is a game, after all. The gameplay needs to be there. To me, more complex mechanics gives more possible choices to make, which in turn gives the game more depth. This results in better satisfaction for the gamer.
 
I do not believe DA:I gives the player the ability to make a sufficient number of meaningful choices, whether in the "gameplay" component of the game — i.e. combat, (which the game forces you to spend a considerable amount of time doing) — or the interactive movie aspect (dialogue with characters). As such, I believe that it fails as a fun game when compared to many others that have come before it (Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate II, Fallout: New Vegas, Shadowrun Returns, Divinity: Original Sin).
 
I realize that many of you disagree. What I wish is that those of you who do would state reasons why you disagree instead of constantly downplaying the criticism people are leveling at this game. What aspects of this game do you really feel makes for a fun experience?

Specializations: While we are limited to only one for this title, it is a decision of some importance. It is not one simply handed to the Player, but must be gained via quest. And it cannot be respecced liked other Tiers; thus making the choice bears some possible thought and planning to be done well.

As for combat, I personally prefer to hide all floating texts, and take advantage of visual cues and the occasional combo rather than plan them out constantly. So when I get a detonation of note, it is something that slows the action and merits some importance.

My current Inq is a casting KE Storm Mage; one that likes to be capable from afar, and offer a surprise should the opponent get too close. My current set-up is Mark of the Rift, Fade Cloak, Spirit Blade, Barrier, Dispel, Chain Lightening, Energy Barrage, and Static Cage. This seems to allow for singular targets or groups, and allows for both primer and detonation possibilities on combos. With varied team members, results also change, but seems to be effective with Warrior, Mage, and Rogue or Mage in the final slot.

As for entertainment, I find the banter amusing or insightful, and have chosen Cole as the best new character. While I still have not examined his dialogue as much as the Mages or Varric, he is worth examination before dismissing the NPC's for whatever reason.