583 réponses à ce sujet

[Poledo]

Inspired by the excellent debate started by Regan Cousland and the many contributors that have added their thoughts, I would like to pose a simple question to a representative from Origins. “Does Origins consider Dragon Age Inquisition to be a Role-Playing Game”?

 

I ask because I’ve played RPG since the days the days of pen and paper. If the “powers that be” at Origin believe that DAI represents a role-playing game, they are very much mistaken.

 

There have been many excellent items in this forum - particular the long and excellent debate started by Regan_Cousland. The contributions make excellent reading (that is if anyone at Origins was actually interested in the views of its customers)

 

As other gamers have said, DAI is a failed attempt at combining two completely different types of game genre under one umbrella. Was DAI designed as a Role-playing game or was it actually released to appeal to Arcade Video Action fanatics.

 

I’ve now played DAI continually since December – many days with my teeth well and truly gritted while I play. It’s only sheer bloody determination that keeps me going. This Bioware Offering is repetitive, trivial, dull and boring. So damn and blast my pig-headedness !!

 

I am nearing the end of it now and am finding it hard to raise the enthusiasm to start what I believe will be the endgame. Unless I actual must, I think I’ll pass on the dozen nesting dragons and the Giant’s enclosure – it’s just too much like a hard slog.

 

Before anyone screams at me, DAI does score because if viewed purely as an Arcade Video Action game, the game is beautifully-designed. I have played many similar games and DAI is better than many. The scenery is excellent, the layout is excellent and the scale is excellent. If you like a game where your characters zoom around many colourful scenarios shooting at everything that moves and collecting everything that doesn’t move – DAI is bloody brilliant!!  No-one can argue with that.

 

Unfortunately if you are a RPG addict, DAI sucks!!  It is really awful.

 

Leaving aside the PC playing handicap where all action is controlled through the mouse and around 40 different keyboard keys, just look at the facts!

 

The 9 controlled characters are simply hideous – my view!! If you are having a passionate lesbian relationship with the foul-mouth oaf, Sara, that’s your problem!! The only companions where actions/dialogue has even raised a smile have been Cassandra and Dorian. Five of these NPC have irritated me so much that I have left them sunbathing in Skyhold for most of the time and unless I am absolutely forced to, they will stay there.

 

When I played DA Origins, I spent so much of the playing time laughing out loud at the amazingly witty comments being made by that brilliant band of lunatics. Every NPC character was made human by the designers. For example the bitchy banter between the 2 gay guys running the Denerim Smithy was priceless and these were mere incidental characters - but the designers used them for effect. Bloody brilliant!  A number of DAI storekeepers are not even named let alone given anything to say.  

 

I had to buy a new PC just so I could play Baldur’s Gate and first words I heard came from the landlord of the local tavern “My sheets are as clean as an elven arse!!”  Instantly, Baldur’s Gate had become a “real” place populated by real people.

 

In DAO, I cared what happened to Alistair, Zevran, Morrigan, Wynne and crew. They became my companions and I spent ages in conversation with them – a massive credit to the game design psychologists. It is this level of attention to detail that turns a so-so game into a great game.

 

Compare that to the DAI equivalent. Most of the NPC so-called banter is tedious and trivial. It generally only occurs when I am hammering away at the “V” key trying to find the hidden object (which naturally is 1500 meters away and at the top a cliff).

 

What is the point of filling the world with lots of people when most of them have absolutely no dialogue at all?  My party fought a hideous battle against Red Templar Juggernauts and the party of 3 Inquisition Solders caught up in the middle of the battle, not only failed to help but didn’t even inquire about our health after the battle was won.

 

Quests /Tasks: This is The Collector’s Heaven. How many tasks are anything but boring fillers of the fetch-and-carry variety? Collect 897 shards, 241 mosaic pieces, 10 green bottles of Thedas and all the pages of a notebook which unfortunately has been scattered across a landscape the size of Morocco. Really exciting stuff!

 

On my first time at the War Table I tried to make a sensible choice before selecting Leliana, Cullen or Josephine for a mission. Why did I bother? With almost no exceptions, the outcome and reward is the same whoever was chosen. This is also true in the selection of the 3 party members. Blurring the character types into just Warrior, Mage and Rogue is crazy.

 

Warfare in this game is automatic. There is little point in applying any thought or strategy into it (I know this will create howls of derision!!) There is no penalty for playing badly. OK, the Inquisitor was knocked out at the start of a battle, has lain on the ground throughout while the other 3 managed without him. Inquisitor then gets up – no problem. If that doesn’t work, reload and try again until you win. Easy and lazy! The action is frantically fast and when tackling a large opposition, many players will have absolutely no idea why so much damage was taken by a particular character.

 

The latest bug fix gives a Storage Chest with its capacity of holding “Hundreds of bloody items????” I used 2 Perks to increase the meagre carrying capacity from 50 to 90 – all because I could then carry rubbish around and later sell it.

 

The same fix didn’t bother to cure the inventory bug whereby Two-Handed Weapon Upgrades were listed as usable by One-Handed weapons (initially this confused the hell out of me). However the Undercroft has gained a table where the player can paint their armour Green. What the f**** !!!  This game is meant to be about a hero saving the universe not for someone who wants to look like Mickey the Martian.  Enough with the facepaint, hairstyles and kiss-kiss romances – this is a Role-Playing game or has Origins totally forgotten that?

 

The world that is inhabited by the player has to be believable. The game is supposed to be an alternate reality. What is the point of  finding Quarries and Logging Stands and crafting upgrades when afterwards Skyhold still resembles a ruined Norman castle? There is no point. It is just another time-filler.

 

Schematics to be used to craft your own kit is the certainly best aspect in a dull game – but collecting the hundreds of components to keep it up-to-date is a real drag.

 

Currently I hold around 160 different type of crafting component - some 7000 pieces of cloth, metal, herbs etc. Think about it! Transporting that vast quantity of components alone would require the party to be accompanied by a fleet of juggernauts. Notice, I haven’t even included all the weapons, armour and other junk. Therefore  why is the party permitted to carry just 8 tiny potions bottles between them? I am heartily sick of having to fast-track it back to camp to “top up” before the next assault.

 

Levelling: - I decided to let the program determine the levelling of all NPCs (on the grounds that it should know best how any NPC should develop). I though some sort of AI would kick-in. AI? What AI?  Whatever the view used, this lot won’t stay still for more than a second before they are again treading on the Inquisitor’s toes. They don’t seem to understand the phrase “Personal Space” at all. The Inquisitor stands on a wall while all the others feel obliged  to climb up the wall beside him, treading on his feet and sometimes knocking him down in the process! Its chaos! On occasions my Rogue Inquisitor has hurled himself through a doorway into the fray and been decked – all because the two fighters didn’t bother to follow him into the room ! What is the point of a team when three characters run around the fourth guy like headless chickens

 

 

Magic: - Again what magic? There are 3 mages. Not one of them can create a magic torch to bring proper illumination to a darkened cave or dungeon. Veil-light hardly counts. Consequently I’ve staggered through endless dark locations without even a cigarette lighter to help. If darkness wasn’t enough, on all the green locations the lead character disappears for 10 minutes into the bushes. Not for a” call of nature” I hasten to add, but because the trees have literally swallowed him up. “Was there something in there?”. “Who knows, I couldn’t see a bloody thing”.

 

Why can mages blast the hell out of 8 marauding wolves but are unable to knock a shard from the top of a ruined wall that is less than 3 meters high?

 

On the subject of shards. Do the designers really think it fun to spend 30 minutes halfway up a mountain trying to get to the summit before discovering there simply isn’t a path going further upwards on this side. You then have to descend and take a hike round the entire range of mountains to the other side and start again?

 

Who really enjoys attempting to climb ice-covered tree branches in the vague hope of being able to leap down on top of a snow-covered wall? Not one of these idiots NPC thought to bring a rope or a torch with them let alone climbing boots. Who put the sodding chest up there in the first place?

 

Amazing land Orlais!  One part of its desert has perpetual daylight and the adjacent area has perpetual night. Astrophysicists would find that fascinating! Bugger reality!

 

Even the Graphics are not beyond criticism. My Inquisitor will suddenly highlight his hair, apply lip-gloss and either his dentures start falling out or he has decided to eat his teeth. It’s weirdly awful.

 

Bioware died following the release of Dragon Age Origins. I read a release where Origins stated that after some less-than-adequate game releases they were back on track – but obviously not to make games - just to make money.

 

After 15 years of buying and loving every Bioware RPG game, this painful offering is the end. I simply cannot bring myself to buy another game from Origins. By both greed and stupidity, they have dismantled the RPG genre. The late lamented Gary Gygax must be spinning in his grave.

 

This is a game in which you take up the role of the inquisitor and decide how that person will react and overcome various situations. It is at it's very heart a roleplaying game. You thinking it does not measure up does not preclude it from being one. You laid out a great deal of what you dislike about the game, and I disagree with a lot of it. Does that make you wrong or me wrong? Or does it mean we simply have differing views while this is still a roleplaying game?

[katokires]

 
 

I take it you guys disagree with the general RPG definition, emphasis on action?

I am aware of this retarded people naming games that way, been aware since I was a kid. But as I said in the other posts, in all games you play a role, in all genres you have stories, and choices, with consequences, and interaction with other characters. So what is the definition of RPG aside from game mechanics?
Also as I also asked before how do I calculate, what are the guidelines to define how much story, interaction, choices and so on make a game RPG? Because to define something it must have some features that I can check if present or not right?
A definition that defines nothing is not a definition. A definition that shares elements with all other genre means absolutely nothing.
I wonder how is it that people keep repeating that a good storytelling, choices and so on are RPG features when you have a game like Saints Row where you have a story, you have interaction, choices, you can create you character and well all this. Story and roleplaying are exclusive to RPGs right? So the last Tomb Raider and Last of Us are what? Then it is choice that makes RPG? I wonder if all games with multiple endings due to different choices are RPG then.
RPG is but a self-titled **** aside from the mechanics. Saying action RPG is like saying wet fire, or solid liquid. You have just been so conditioned to accept that that you don't even question yourselves what is REALLY unique to RPGs.

[AlanC9]

I am aware of this retarded people naming games that way, been aware since I was a kid. But as I said in the other posts, in all games you play a role, in all genres you have stories, and choices, with consequences, and interaction with other characters.

Do we have actually choices with consequences and interaction in all genres? I don't recall either in, say, HL2, unless other characters talking to Freeman counts as interaction. Adventure games often give you interaction, but never choices. And if a shooter or adventure game does incorporate these things, doesn't that mean it's moving towards becoming an RPG?

A definition that defines nothing is not a definition. A definition that shares elements with all other genre means absolutely nothing.
I wonder how is it that people keep repeating that a good storytelling, choices and so on are RPG features when you have a game like Saints Row where you have a story, you have interaction, choices, you can create you character and well all this.

Maybe Saints Row is an RPG.

[AlanC9]

I know the game mechanics perfectly. It doesn't. There is not "to hit" stat, it is all up to you.

Even in Tactical mode?

[AlanC9]

Is it possible to beat any fight and move on with the game, simply based on player skill and real time action handling , even though you have crappy equipment and a pointless build? ->Action game.

Hmm.... intuitively appealing, but then a game would change genre depending on the difficulty level setting.

Can you storm through everything with minimal effort and simple rotation handling if you have a specific build and great items->RPG.
Do you require a balance of both and only one won't save you 95%?->ActionRPG

The first sentence makes RPGs sound like bad games. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second. If the player needs to know what he's doing, it's probably not an RPG?

[CronoDragoon]

Failed "RPG as genre" discussions always remind me of the obscenity threshold test as described by Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis vs. Ohio.

 

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

 

Basically, instead of finding necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be an RPG, instead we simply list things we've often seen in previous RPGs.

 

It's difficult for me to believe, for example, that dice rolls are necessary for something to be an RPG. Dice rolls are just a way of solving the issue of abstracting combat.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

DA:I is not a role-playing game. If choosing a class/race combo makes it an RPG then team fortress is an RPG too.

Through the entire game I played Bioware's Inquisitor, not my own. 
The Inquisitor is 95% set in stone and projected like Bioware wanted to shape him/her.

 

Forget any big options like using the mark to enter the black city.

Forget dissolving or destroying the chantry.

 

Forget trying to be a dark character in conversation, the game forces you to be a good person with a moral and ethical code. Try to support Tevinter, slavery or agree with the Envy demon. You cant. 

 

Forget  lying and deceiving people.
Forget having mother Giselle executed.
Forget using the inquisition for your own gain. 
Forget any shape or form of machiavellian, darker or "evil" choices like in Origins. 
Forget being an opportunist.
Forget trying to join or replace Corypheus. 

Pretty much: Forget doing anything in this game other than playing Bioware's Inquisitor, because the "white knight in shining armor with the morally upstanding advocate of justice boyscout behavior" is purely a projection of what the Bioware writers wanted their Inquisitor to be. With some small seasoning of player choice for spice, like: "who to romance" / gender / voice actor. 

"Be who you want to be" for DA:I is the fattest lie from Bioware yet. 

Still love Bioware and Dragon age: Inquisition though.  Just wish they could go back to the more dark world they created with actual choices. The Hollywood  / Heroic saviour / boyscoutquisitor they shoved down or throats this time is honestly sickening in its lack of choice. Fortunately they made everything else so good that the game is still very enjoyable. 


 

[pdusen]

...
EVERY GAME LETS YOU TO PLAY A ROLE.

...
RPG IS A MECHANIC.

 

Then maybe you should call it something else.

[pdusen]

DA:I is not a role-playing game. If choosing a class/race combo makes it an RPG then team fortress is an RPG too.

Through the entire game I played Bioware's Inquisitor, not my own. 
The Inquisitor is 95% set in stone and projected like Bioware wanted to shape him/her.

 

Forget any big options like using the mark to enter the black city.

Forget dissolving or destroying the chantry.

 

Forget trying to be a dark character in conversation, the game forces you to be a good person with a moral and ethical code. Try to support Tevinter, slavery or agree with the Envy demon. You cant. 

 

Forget  lying and deceiving people.
Forget having mother Giselle executed.
Forget using the inquisition for your own gain. 
Forget any shape or form of machiavellian, darker or "evil" choices like in Origins. 
Forget being an opportunist.
Forget trying to join or replace Corypheus. 

Pretty much: Forget doing anything in this game other than playing Bioware's Inquisitor, because the "white knight in shining armor with the morally upstanding advocate of justice boyscout behavior" is purely a projection of what the Bioware writers wanted their Inquisitor to be. With some small seasoning of player choice for spice, like: "who to romance" / gender / voice actor. 

"Be who you want to be" for DA:I is the fattest lie from Bioware yet. 

Still love Bioware and Dragon age: Inquisition though.  Just wish they could go back to the more dark world they created with actual choices. The Hollywood  / Heroic saviour / boyscoutquisitor they shoved down or throats this time is honestly sickening in its lack of choice. Fortunately they made everything else so good that the game is still very enjoyable. 


 

 

Yeah, if a game doesn't throw away all realistic narrative boundaries, then it's not an RPG, right?

 

Here's an idea: go write fan-fiction.

[CronoDragoon]

DA:I is not a role-playing game. If choosing a class/race combo makes it an RPG then team fortress is an RPG too.

 

What I am taking from your post is that choices and definable personalities must be distinct to the point of in opposition for something to be an RPG. I don't really agree with that, personally.

 

Let's say KOTOR lets you make a light side or dark side choice for a quest.

Let's say DA: I lets you support one or another political entity for a quest, both of which are aligned with "good."

 

KOTOR is therefore an RPG and DA: I isn't?

 

"Be who you want to be" has been a lie since the inception of cRPGs.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Hmm.... intuitively appealing, but then a game would change genre depending on the difficulty level setting.


The first sentence makes RPGs sound like bad games. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second. If the player needs to know what he's doing, it's probably not an RPG?

Yes, if a game was so easy that there's no challenge at all, it not only stops being an rpg, it stops being a game altogether. Games require a task for you solve. If it's so easy there's no task, it's not really a game anymore. Imagine if everything was solved and you progressed from one custscene to another simply with *one click to spam insta-win move*. It would no longer be a game, it'd be a collection of videos that you scroll through by clicking and activating one move, instead of selecting "next video" from a list of videos.

 

It doesn't make RPGs sound like bad games, rpgs still require skill an pose a challenge, but the challenge is more in understanding your character and building him/her than in real-time dodging enemy attacks, for instance. The second sentence meant if you need both character building and real-time handling of character actions, to succeed in a game, it's an ActionRPG as opposed to a pure action game or a pure RPG . I don't know how you got "player needs to know what he's doing->not RPG" from that.

[X Equestris]

DA:I is not a role-playing game. If choosing a class/race combo makes it an RPG then team fortress is an RPG too.
Through the entire game I played Bioware's Inquisitor, not my own. 
The Inquisitor is 95% set in stone and projected like Bioware wanted to shape him/her.
 
Forget any big options like using the mark to enter the black city.
Forget dissolving or destroying the chantry.
 
Forget trying to be a dark character in conversation, the game forces you to be a good person with a moral and ethical code. Try to support Tevinter, slavery or agree with the Envy demon. You cant. 
 
Forget  lying and deceiving people.
Forget having mother Giselle executed.
Forget using the inquisition for your own gain. 
Forget any shape or form of machiavellian, darker or "evil" choices like in Origins. 
Forget being an opportunist.
Forget trying to join or replace Corypheus. 
Pretty much: Forget doing anything in this game other than playing Bioware's Inquisitor, because the "white knight in shining armor with the morally upstanding advocate of justice boyscout behavior" is purely a projection of what the Bioware writers wanted their Inquisitor to be. With some small seasoning of player choice for spice, like: "who to romance" / gender / voice actor. 
"Be who you want to be" for DA:I is the fattest lie from Bioware yet. 
Still love Bioware and Dragon age: Inquisition though.  Just wish they could go back to the more dark world they created with actual choices. The Hollywood  / Heroic saviour / boyscoutquisitor they shoved down or throats this time is honestly sickening in its lack of choice. Fortunately they made everything else so good that the game is still very enjoyable.

The vast majority of your choice requests make absolutely no sense. Why anyone would want to some of those things is beyond me. Some of the others are impossible to do in a way that makes sense.

[Cyonan]

Yes, if a game was so easy that there's no challenge at all, it not only stops being an rpg, it stops being a game altogether. Games require a task for you solve. If it's so easy there's no task, it's not really a game anymore. Imagine if everything was solved and you progressed from one custscene to another simply with *one click to spam insta-win move*. It would no longer be a game, it'd be a collection of videos that you scroll through by clicking and activating one move, instead of selecting "next video" from a list of videos.

 

It doesn't make RPGs sound like bad games, rpgs still require skill an pose a challenge, but the challenge is more in understanding your character and building him/her than in real-time dodging enemy attacks, for instance. The second sentence meant if you need both character building and real-time handling of character actions, to succeed in a game, it's an ActionRPG as opposed to a pure action game or a pure RPG . I don't know how you got "player needs to know what he's doing->not RPG" from that.

 

Well your wording does make the combat portion of a RPG sound pretty boring. It suggests that once I build my character I really don't have to do a whole lot to win at combat and could probably write a short script that plays the game just as effectively.

 

Personally I would prefer something like Divinity: Original Sin or Shadowrun where you need to understand how to build a character as well as how to be tactical in combat.

 

Although I have to wonder, with the statement "The second sentence meant if you need both character building and real-time handling of character actions, to succeed in a game, it's an ActionRPG" do you think Origins is a ARPG because it's played in real time, or does the pause function excuse it?

[Joneleth]

Yeah, if a game doesn't throw away all realistic narrative boundaries, then it's not an RPG, right?

 

Here's an idea: go write fan-fiction.

You do realise that this franchise actively involves players in creating their own narratives, right? That's what the Dragon Age Keep is for. Tight boundaries on that narrative can only do more harm than good.

 

Not saying that's what defines an RPG, or RPG mechanics, just pointing that out.

 

The vast majority of your choice requests make absolutely no sense. Why anyone would want to some of those things is beyond me. Some of the others are impossible to do in a way that makes sense.

Yeah, it appears that's how Bioware's writers thought. Or they were limited by time/budget.

[SomberXIII]

It is obviously action. If your actions success are defined by... actions it is... action.

RPG -> [Stat X + (sometimes) Random Number] vs Enemy Defense = Success/Fail
Action -> Press button + your accuracy = Success/Fail

DAO -> Attack vs Enemy Defense
DAI -> If you are in a possible range and aiming at the enemy you hit, unless he uses a skill to evade, then you use another fo follow and so on... action, action, action

Happens in jRPG too. Zelda -> Action, Final Fantasy (early) -> RPG

Thank you for your extremely logical explanation. I'll note it down on a paper and will read it out loud everyday.

[Lebanese Dude]

LOL

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

What I am taking from your post is that choices and definable personalities must be distinct to the point of in opposition for something to be an RPG. I don't really agree with that, personally.

 

Let's say KOTOR lets you make a light side or dark side choice for a quest.

Let's say DA: I lets you support one or another political entity for a quest, both of which are aligned with "good."

 

KOTOR is therefore an RPG and DA: I isn't?

 

"Be who you want to be" has been a lie since the inception of cRPGs.

I'm not sure I follow, I admit the examples I used for my reasoning may be flawed. 

 

***Example (Skip this if you want)***

Spoiler

My Necromancer wanted to attempt to join Corypheus. I understand why - with the narrative - this isnt possible. But I'm not even allowed to try. My character also has nothing against slavery, but talking with Dorian about this once - I dont have the choice to be pro-slavery. Bioware again rejects my character having an opinion. On Tevinter: My mage sympathizes with Tevinter. The world is ruled by the strong, this is not so much "good vs evil" as it is "nature" / ideology / cultural opinions. I am not even allowed this. The Envy demon shows me the future it wanted with my body, all I wanted to tell him was "You aim too low with your ambition" or something.

***

I understand that the narrative imposes restrictions on actual events and the progress of the story Bioware wishes to relay. But you are not even allowed to have opinions which defines your character in dialogue OTHER than what Bioware want the Inquisitor to be.

Its like playing dungeons and dragons with the game master / dungeon master telling you. "You can join this setting and scenario and make a character... but oh... you can only play lawful good and I wont allow you to do anything I consider morally dubious".

 

Temptation should be a theme.
Power corrupts. Abusing your power as Inquisitor should be a real choice.

My point is: Bioware's take on the Inquisitor is so restricted in morals, ethics and personality variation that the end result is an Inquisitor so linear and one dimensional that any choice that defines your character is ripped away.

Like pdusen said "Go write fan fiction". 

You shouldnt need to write fan fiction to satisfy the CORE values of your character's persona.

[Jawzzus]

LOL

[AlanC9]

It doesn't make RPGs sound like bad games, rpgs still require skill an pose a challenge, but the challenge is more in understanding your character and building him/her than in real-time dodging enemy attacks, for instance. The second sentence meant if you need both character building and real-time handling of character actions, to succeed in a game, it's an ActionRPG as opposed to a pure action game or a pure RPG . I don't know how you got "player needs to know what he's doing->not RPG" from that.

You didn't make it clear that you were talking only about reflexes rather than about playing skill in general. For instance, you still have to play an IE game yourself no matter what your build or spell loadout is, since the AI can't play the game effectively. Though hypothetically, if you refitted an IE game with DA:O's Tactics, it would pretty much play itself.

[Lilithor]

DA:I is not a role-playing game. If choosing a class/race combo makes it an RPG then team fortress is an RPG too.

Through the entire game I played Bioware's Inquisitor, not my own. 
The Inquisitor is 95% set in stone and projected like Bioware wanted to shape him/her.

 

Forget any big options like using the mark to enter the black city.

Forget dissolving or destroying the chantry.

 

Forget trying to be a dark character in conversation, the game forces you to be a good person with a moral and ethical code. Try to support Tevinter, slavery or agree with the Envy demon. You cant. 

 

Forget  lying and deceiving people.
Forget having mother Giselle executed.
Forget using the inquisition for your own gain. 
Forget any shape or form of machiavellian, darker or "evil" choices like in Origins. 
Forget being an opportunist.
Forget trying to join or replace Corypheus. 

Pretty much: Forget doing anything in this game other than playing Bioware's Inquisitor, because the "white knight in shining armor with the morally upstanding advocate of justice boyscout behavior" is purely a projection of what the Bioware writers wanted their Inquisitor to be. With some small seasoning of player choice for spice, like: "who to romance" / gender / voice actor. 

"Be who you want to be" for DA:I is the fattest lie from Bioware yet. 

Still love Bioware and Dragon age: Inquisition though.  Just wish they could go back to the more dark world they created with actual choices. The Hollywood  / Heroic saviour / boyscoutquisitor they shoved down or throats this time is honestly sickening in its lack of choice. Fortunately they made everything else so good that the game is still very enjoyable. 


 

I don't love Inquisition but I love your post.

[99DP1982]

So in other words, Dragon Age should follow PnP RPG rules, but only those rules you personally agree with?

 

Show me a PnP RPG that currently, wait... in the last 10 years hard locks your abilities to wear armor or wield weapon.

[Giubba]

People said the exact same things as that when Origins was released, and how it wasn't BGII, and when Mass Effect 2 stripped away the RPG elements, and...

 

 

And that was the point when i stopped giving a **** about BSN opinion.

 

Now it's high time Bioware itself start to do the same.

[Lilithor]

The vast majority of your choice requests make absolutely no sense. Why anyone would want to some of those things is beyond me. Some of the others are impossible to do in a way that makes sense.

If you don't understand why someone wants that it means it shouldn't exist? I wonder how there is still homophobic people right? Perhaps it is because of this thinking. Also Bioware must have awful writters if they can't make that fit the story, I could make an evil Inquisition just fine without spending 2 minutes to think about it.
 

Yeah, if a game doesn't throw away all realistic narrative boundaries, then it's not an RPG, right?

 

Here's an idea: go write fan-fiction.

Realistic? Never studies story right? Because almost all leaders or the past, including religious ones, would make any DnD villain look like Lawful Good Paladins. The easiest and most realistic thing in this world is an evil person ruling giant organizations in the name of the "greater good". Also people in this forums talk about thing as if they were impossible but they were possible in Bioware games before Bioware went retarded so how is it that it is impossible? They did the impossible pretty regularly.

[99DP1982]

What makes a roleplaying is the roleplaying, and roleplaying is just in-character decision-making.

But there's more than one way to do that, and you seem to favour the approach that offers reactivity. You want to make decisions that produce a visible effect. Naturally, that would result in fewer decision-making opportunities, as each decision would need to be backed by more content.

The other way to do it is to offer more choices, but with outcomes that don't differ as much. This is my preference, as it gives me greater freedom to define my character, and this is what DAI does (so did Skyrim).
You know you can turn that off, right?

I did before ever playing the game. I've never seen the colours or the icons.

 

is GTA an RPG too then?

 

as for the second part, no I had no idea, thanks for enlightening.

[CronoDragoon]

I'm not sure I follow, I admit the examples I used for my reasoning may be flawed. 

 

I'm just trying to extract a principle through which we could judge other games. It appears to be that RPGs must allow choices that fulfill the full range of the morality spectrum in order to be an RPG. Is that a fair summation?