583 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Agreed with most of this except characters being good, they used the same tricks over and over with a lot of their characters now, Cassandra-Avaleine for example. They felt very unorganic to me

Cassandra is not the same as Aveline.

[leaguer of one]

I think that's the point.

 

Despite being extremely similar in wording there is a difference between "playing a role in something" and actual "role-playing".

 

Virtually everything you actively take part in you have a role in, but obviously not everything in life is role playing.

No it's not the point. Roleplaying in rpgs has you play a role. You don't do that in  Half-life 2.

[Cyonan]

No it's not the point. Roleplaying in rpgs has you play a role. You don't do that in  Half-life 2.

 

The role you play is Gordon Freeman as he fights the combine. Playing the role of a mute as he goes from shootout to shootout is still a role, even though Half-Life isn't a RPG.

 

As I said before, playing a role and actual role-playing are two different things. Yes they're very similarly worded, but that's just the English language being the English language.

 

The original point being that "a game in which you play a role" is so broadly defined that you could claim pretty much every game falls under that definition.

[Farangbaa]

I gotta steal someone's joke here, but

It seems people think that only Roll Playing Games can be Role Playing Games.

[Realmzmaster]

The interesting point is that there are quite a few PnP role playing systems that make no use of dice. The Marvel Universe Roleplaying system being one along with Amber diceless role playing system. So if games are made based on these systems they can be called computer role playing games.

 

So roll playing games are not the only way to make role playing games.

[rigron]

I do agree with the OP in some points and I think that before criticing him because "urrdurrheishatingurrdurr" you should real his post because he has made a lot of points that are reasonably argumented from a logic point of view. Dragon Age Inquisition may be a good or a bad game (or an averague one) depending on your subjective perception, everyone has his own opinion on that, but it is not an RPG by the meaning and the standards that genre has.

 

What areas do you feel are lacking?

 

It has a character who you can create from scratch, pick their gender, race, class and choose what they say.

 

Not "from scratch" really. A character creator has to felt like more than a "choose what textures do you want". There is little to no relevance to what race, gender or class do you play and almost everything your character say is exactly the same with different words, you are not free to roleplay the way you want, you have morale imposed in your player, it doesn´t matter if the Inquisitor is more rude or more friendly because the idea given by X dialogue option is the same.

 

It has a story that the character can impact.

 

LOL no

 

It has an environment that the character can impact.

 

Really LOL no. Choosing between Quanari, Andrastian or Tevinter windows doesn´t make for "impacting the enviroment"

 

It has companions to talk to and to develop a connection with or not as you choose.

 

Yes BUT. That "but" is for the absurd removal of the feature to talk with them outside the main base. But ey, companions are for the most part well written in this game, good work on this matter Bioware/EA

 

It's got a leveling system.

 

Not really. All you can do is use points in the skill trees, you are not able to even choose which attributes do you want to level up because, for some absurd, illogical, unreasonable reason the game has autolevel for all your characters and you can´t get rid of it.

 

Lots of skills to choose from

 

Not really and almost all of those skills are basically divided between damage and barriers. Most of those skills have the same base idea with different touches but there is no real variety there, a mage should be able to do much more than elemental damage and putting a barrier on someone for example. You compare the ammount of skills and its effects on Dragon Age Inquisition with the ammount of skills and its effects on Baldur´s Gate 2 and you simply cry over the FACT in caps that Bioware has screw this up so bad

 

You can equip a variety of weapons and armour

 

Which is like giving props to a racing game because it has cars on it. You are supposed to be able to equip whatever you want on your character and it´s companions, it shouldn´t be a feature to talk off.

 

It's got a crafting system.

 

Yes, it has. Not a very good one, neither the worst I have seen, so I agree with you on this point, although having a crafting system does not make a game become an RPG, unless The Last of Us is an RPG and I was not aware of it during the whole time I played it.

 

It's got places to explore.

 

¿"Explore"? Running around an empty large place simply killing random mobs while doing boring fetch quest taken from an MMORPG does not really count as "explore"

 

It has all the elements that most people seem to agree makes an RPG, now whether or not it does those things well, is of course up for debate.

 

Not really. An RPG is made by the right issue of those elements. I am not saying a "good" use, I am saying a "right" use. Two Worls was a bad RPG that made a right use of the RPG elements for example. Dragon Age Inquisition on the other hand is an averague mix of...I don´t know exactly how should I name it. It may entertain people, it does have companions written incredible well (they are basically the only good thing on the game) but it lacks a lot of options and features which were normally common in RPGs and most important: it does not give you the feeling that you are roleplaying anything, you are not free to roleplay the way you want to roleplay and whatever you do has no meaning and no consequence in the world and in the characters around you outside a line of reference or, with luck, a dialogue

 

I for one really enjoy DA:I, but whether or not you liked the game doesn't prevent it from being an RPG.

 

Liking or not the game does not relate to being an RPG: Dragon Age Inquisition is not an RPG, not in the common meaning of the genre. It prevents you from roleplaying your character the way you want, it prevents you from leveling up your character (and companions) the way you want, whatever happens, whatever you do and whatever you decide doesn´t influence the world and the people around you (again: outside maybe a dialogue line)...yes, it has skills, and The Last of Us has skills and a crafting system too that you level up for that purpose, but having skills (and very poor skills compared to other RPGs and even to other Dragon Age games) does not mean that a game is an RPG.

 

As I said, I've played some really terrible RPGs before but they were definitely RPGs, not good games but definitely RPGs.

 

I agree with that: the quality of a game is not related with it´s genre. There are good RPGs and there are bad RPGs. Dragon Age Inquisition is not a good game, neither a bad game, it is somewhere in the middle more near to the good side (I would rate it around a 5,5 - 6), but it doesn´t matter because it is not an RPG, it does have a couple of RPG elements, but it lacks so much RPG elements and some of the ones it has are wrong since the design base to cualify it as an RPG

 

In red my words

 

And sorry for any gramatical errors, I am not an english native and I am writting fast.

[pdusen]

but it is not an RPG by the meaning and the standards that genre has.

 

There's no such thing.

[Realmzmaster]

So basically what is being said is that this is what I want in an RPG therefore that is the definitive definition of the genre. The problem is that it is only your definition that can be different from another gamers definition. The p n p rpgs do not have a definitive definition. You have p n p rpg systems that have no leveling. do not use dice do not have attributes and use only skills does that mean it is not a rpg system? If the p n p system does not have alignment does that make it not a rpg system. If a computer game is based on one of those systems does that make it not a cRPG?

 

What if crafting is allowed or not allowed?

 

The bottomline is everyone here has a list of what makes an RPG for them. It simply is not a definitive definition for anyone else.

 

IMHO, DAI is an RPG because it meets my definition, but YMMV.

[Paul E Dangerously]

"What is an RPG" is something that nobody's ever going to agree on, and that's fine. Some people are in it for the character interaction. Some people are in it for character building. Some people like mechanics, and some people don't.

 

My stance on it is that DAI is an RPG, yes, but it's not that great of one. The character potential is pretty limited despite the appearance, and it's a wasteland on the mechanical end - there's no real depth there.

[SpunkyMonkey]

I'll say this, I don't agree with a lot of what the OP says but DA:I didn't feel like an RPG to me, it felt like an MMO/cash in.

 

Define RPG's how you want technically, but what's at the core of each great one is an adventure, a story, and an experience to thrive on. DA:I was MILES wide of that mark.

 

That's what worries me most about the way Bioware are progressing. Making a good experience seems to be so far down the priority list compared to the tickbox "open world", "awesome button combat" etc. priorities.

 

Every single conversation I had in DA:O felt significant and they felt natural. Again, break down the technicalities all you want, but I felt as if I was having a conversation, and that as if any one of my questions/statements could lead somewhere totally different yet in keeping with the flow. In both DA:2 & DA:I conversations felt mathmatical and poor. I don;t need to be told if what I'm saying is stoic, good bad or whatever, I decide that for myself. One person telling someone they are fat may be doing so out of kindness trying to help them, another person out of spitefulness trying to hurt them. Why we need labels to bracket our own decisions I don't know.

[X Equestris]

I'll say this, I don't agree with a lot of what the OP says but DA:I didn't feel like an RPG to me, it felt like an MMO/cash in.
 
Define RPG's how you want technically, but what's at the core of each great one is an adventure, a story, and an experience to thrive on. DA:I was MILES wide of that mark.
 
That's what worries me most about the way Bioware are progressing. Making a good experience seems to be so far down the priority list compared to the tickbox "open world", "awesome button combat" etc. priorities.
 
Every single conversation I had in DA:O felt significant and they felt natural. Again, break down the technicalities all you want, but I felt as if I was having a conversation, and that as if any one of my questions/statements could lead somewhere totally different yet in keeping with the flow. In both DA:2 & DA:I conversations felt mathmatical and poor. I don;t need to be told if what I'm saying is stoic, good bad or whatever, I decide that for myself. One person telling someone they are fat may be doing so out of kindness trying to help them, another person out of spitefulness trying to hurt them. Why we need labels to bracket our own decisions I don't know.

And everything you said is completely subjective.

[Cyonan]

I'll say this, I don't agree with a lot of what the OP says but DA:I didn't feel like an RPG to me, it felt like an MMO/cash in.

 

Define RPG's how you want technically, but what's at the core of each great one is an adventure, a story, and an experience to thrive on. DA:I was MILES wide of that mark.

 

That's what worries me most about the way Bioware are progressing. Making a good experience seems to be so far down the priority list compared to the tickbox "open world", "awesome button combat" etc. priorities.

 

Every single conversation I had in DA:O felt significant and they felt natural. Again, break down the technicalities all you want, but I felt as if I was having a conversation, and that as if any one of my questions/statements could lead somewhere totally different yet in keeping with the flow. In both DA:2 & DA:I conversations felt mathmatical and poor. I don;t need to be told if what I'm saying is stoic, good bad or whatever, I decide that for myself. One person telling someone they are fat may be doing so out of kindness trying to help them, another person out of spitefulness trying to hurt them. Why we need labels to bracket our own decisions I don't know.

 

Well since DA2 and Inquisition had a voiced PC, it would be really weird if you wanted to call somebody fat to be a dick but then your character delivered the line in a very kind tone. That would be why they indicate if it's to be stoic, good, bad, etc.

 

Even for Origins I would argue the strength is the variety in amount of lines you can choose from. It doesn't matter what tone I want my PC to say the line in, the NPC reacts in the same way every time.

 

and for me personally while the dialogue might work, in order for it to feel truly natural they need to work on the "BioWare face" that happens in the majority of dialogue where the characters stand 2 feet away from each other with unending stares into the other's eyes in a creepiness that is only matched by Bethesda's NPCs.

 

Inquisition was actually better at that than Origins or DA2, but still had plenty of it.

[Skeevley]

While I agree with many responders that the OP does not state his/her point all that well, it's actually clear what the point of the post is. I fundamentally agree with the overall sentiment, being that, as an RPG DAI fails miserably. It's the single most boring and pointless game I've ever bothered to finish. Much of it was sheer drudgery and kind of a "pre-teen action fest" for lack of a better term. Of course, many people find repetitive and pointless action very exciting, and I guess if it was not attempting to be a sequel to one of the best RPGs of all time then it might stand tall as an action game, kind of like Diablo. But the fact is that it IS a sequel to a game, and that brings certain expectations in terms of tone, gameplay, and overall quality. Bioware should have simply saved all of us fans for years of anticipation and eventual disappointment by coming straight out and saying they were shifting the Dragon Age world towards a (most younger I expect) and more action-oriented audience. Then those of us who wanted a great RPG could have stopped expecting Bioware to follow-through.

 

As an RGP DAI belongs with the worst of the worst.

[phantomrachie]

I do agree with the OP in some points and I think that before criticing him because "urrdurrheishatingurrdurr" you should real his post because he has made a lot of points that are reasonably argumented from a logic point of view. Dragon Age Inquisition may be a good or a bad game (or an averague one) depending on your subjective perception, everyone has his own opinion on that, but it is not an RPG by the meaning and the standards that genre has.

 

 

In red my words

 

And sorry for any gramatical errors, I am not an english native and I am writting fast.

 

 

The character creator is creating a character hence its name.

 

I got a number of Qunari specific dialogise options, far more race specific options then I did in DA:O, so if anything the character creator has more impact on the game then it did in DA:O

 

You can't just say 'lol no' to one of my points and not say why.

 

I don't know about you but I got to:

• Repair bridges to gain access to new areas
• Build a bridge over a swamp to make it less toxic
• Decide to help the Templar's or the Mages
• Decide who ruled a country
• Have an impact on my companions personal quests

These are just a few examples of how I got to impact both the environment and the story.

 

Adding attributes doesn't define a levelling system.

 

By that logic the following games had no levelling system

• Mass Effect
• Fallout 3
• Fallout NV
• Skyrim
• All Zelda games
• Most Final Fantasy games
• Lost Odyssey

 

I could go on.

 

Besides, you can add attribute points by choosing certain skills and crafting certain armour.

 

Skills are dividing between damage and barriers? What are you talking about? Sure if you boil all the combat skills down then they fit those two categories, but if I boil the combat skills down for any game, including BG2, they fit into 3 categories, damage, barriers and healing.

 

All of the non-combat  skills are Inquisition Perks, which was really cool from a roleplaying perceptive, because it was more like the Inquisition was giving resources to the Inquisitor and that is how a, Dwarf for example, could have Arcane Knowledge .

 

For me the crafting system is fun, much more fun than crafting system in most games, I went on a Dragon Killing spree just last night to get enough dragon materials to craft some kick ass armour and weapons. The new tinting system means most of my guys are now in pink dragon armour 

 

I like the fact that the armour looks different on each companion, so we can equip a companion with whatever armour we want but they don't lose their unique style.

 

You've made no argument against it being an RPG , you've just looked at my points said 'lol no' and repeated the same generic comments that I see so much on this forum that I have to wonder if you even played DA:I or played it for every long.

 

I hope DA:I doesn't become like DA2 - were people who never played the game start to criticise it based on what they have read in forums or in comment sections.

 

DA:I is an RPG, like it or don't like it. That is fine, but don't kick it out if its genera just because you don't like it. 

[katokires]

There is absolutely no point in saying "This is subjective" when everything is subjective.

You don't really believe the universe is made of particles, waves, dark matter and other stuff right? In fact the universe doesn't even exist. As we ourselves don't. The very idea that we are a singular entity in the universe able to escape standard action-reaction interaction because we supposedly have free will is very subjective.

"Everything you said is subjective", YES. As is everything else everybody else said from the beginning of time and will say until the end. Since we share some symbols, meanings and concepts with other people when we share it with a huge number of people our subjectivity seems like a "fact", but don't worry, it is not, it never is, there is no such thing as a fact for a being that reads the universe through limited senses, a complex mesh of meaning built upon previous interactions and, the most important distortion in our preception of the universe, the symbolic, the fact that we represent the universe with a simulation based on language. We will never know the real thing because what allows us to study, to name things, divide them into groups because of their features and find patterns that identify them with precision is exactly the same thing that makes us have a completely delirious perception of what is "reality".

From time to time I see physicists having a hard time with equations and other discoveries when it seems like time and/or space do not exist, also when trying to explain how certain things they find in quantum physics would apply in the universe, and that is because they still think we deal with reality, if they knew what our perception of reality really is they would know beforehand that time and space OBVIOUSLY do not exist, but, ok, let them stumble with their own humanity for a while, they are bound to understand that in a near future.

But this whole tale is just to explain this: There is no point in pointing subjectivity when there is no situation where subjectivity is not present. Even when we are talking about "facts" there is a very subjective reason for the person to bring them upon the table. Talking about humans is talking about subjectivity. Now we are in a forum about a game, which for most people seem to be a matter of enjoying it, you can't get any more subjective than that, pretending facts matter is both dishonest and useless. But if you want to pretend your opinion is somehow superior because it is supposedly logically flawless or at least coherent, ok, keep playing "Subjectivity Invalidity".

[NextGenCowboy]

Subjectivity isn't a line, or a switch. Things don't just fall on this side or that, nor are they switched on, and off, there's a lot area in between. Someone's opinion can be subjective, but backed up by reasons, data, well-thought out and rational arguments etc.

 

The issue is, people, including myself when I was younger, have been debating exactly what RPGs are for well over 30 years, and we're no closer to getting a definitive consensus now than we were then. If anything, due to the increase in the amount of playable systems, and the proliferation of gaming of all types, it's actually even harder to define in 2015 than it was in 1986, 1996, etc.

 

Some systems, like FATE, use minimal dice roles, no charts, but are just as much RPG as classic D&D, and have been around for a very long time as well. Then we start bringing up JRPGs, and Eastern RPGs, and then there's overlap, with games like Star Ocean, that borrow elements from all the different types, and meets every criteria set in this thread, while at the same time breaking a ton of rules for the genre.

[AlanC9]

I fundamentally agree with the overall sentiment, being that, as an RPG DAI fails miserably. It's the single most boring and pointless game I've ever bothered to finish.

I don't see why this means that DAI fails as an RPG in particular. rather than just failing as a game in general.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Dragon Age: Inquisition is an Action RPG.

 

The above statement has no bearing on it's quality as a game, or even as an RPG. Just that it is an (action) RPG.

 

It's like when people said DA 2 wasn't an RPG because they didn't like it. No, it was an RPG. The fact that it's a crap game doesn't change that.

[o Ventus]

If the “powers that be” at Origin believe that DAI represents a role-playing game, they are very much mistaken.

 

Enlighten us then, o great one. What is an RPG?

[Lilithor]

Enlighten us then, o great one. What is an RPG?

These days I'm accepting even FIFA as RPG, anything that is not Inquisition is RPG. If there is any definition to RPG it is: NOT INQUISITION.

[Cyonan]

These days I'm accepting even FIFA as RPG, anything that is not Inquisition is RPG. If there is any definition to RPG it is: NOT INQUISITION.

 

Call of Duty is best RPG ever.

[In Exile]

These days I'm accepting even FIFA as RPG, anything that is not Inquisition is RPG. If there is any definition to RPG it is: NOT INQUISITION.

 

I always knew that bookcases were RPGs.

[AlanC9]

That's probably a bit too subtle for this crowd.

[In Exile]

That's probably a bit too subtle for this crowd.

 

Sylvius will get it.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

These days I'm accepting even FIFA as RPG, anything that is not Inquisition is RPG. If there is any definition to RPG it is: NOT INQUISITION.

 

You joke, but FIFA can easily be classified as an Action RPG.