Qistina

I don't say it is bad because it is old, but it is bad because the old mechanic just don't suitable for new games anymore, it is fine for old games. With new graphic today ad new types of players, the level up system just don't go along anymore because gamers today wat realism, want something fresh, that is what game developers failed to deliver and become somehow uncreative about that. No, not just Skyrim, but Dragon Age and many other modern games. Level up system for today games have become tedious. I give an example, most games today having main character being a war veteran (as in KotOR 2), but the character level is level 1, the character have to level up learning all the skill like a novice and become what his/her supposed to be that is a war veteran. Unless there is an explanation on why the main character become like a fresh cadet recruit, this just doesn't make sense. We can forgive Diablo and many other old games because at that time it is acceptable, but for modern game, modern RPG, for me there is no need for level up system anymore. Just change it with something else such as item dependant or the character already have all basic skills but can learn new rare skills, something like that. When you choose a warrior or knight class, that character is a warrior and knight, surely a real warrior and knight already having all the skills being a warrior and knight, not like a noob fighter. The same with Mages, you pick a Mage but turn out to be that character only have one or two spells. Like in Dragon Age :Origin, you are said to be the First Enchanter favorite student, so smart and better than anyone else and is ready for Harrowing, but you only have two spells, for many years being in the Mage college you only learn TWO spells because the game say you are level 1 Mage... That's what i mean. (Edit: to think about it, i like TES:Oblivion starting character creation but still don't make sense, when you choose magic major skills, or Mage class, you get all the basic spells related to the magic schools, but that is only after you talk to Baurus, before that you have two spells in which we could question where these other spells gone before talking to Baurus...the same if you choose combat major skills, you begin at journeyman level, but before talk to Baurus you are having amnesia)

Another point i want to adress about Skyrim, the Bleakfall Burrow is said to be a dangerous place, and NPCs dialogues indicate that no one survived that place before. But because of leveling system, if we going there at level 5 or so, it is not dangerous at all. So it breaking the immersion when Farrengar said "You survived Bleakfall Burrow!"...it's nothing. But if we go there at level 80 world, we can see why it is dangerous and no one survived before...there are Drauger Deathlords and what not. So leveling system do break realism and immersion for a modern game.

Yes games like Diablo is linear, i can understand the level system is necessary, and it is fun because as long as you can't defeat the boss at this map surely you can't progress in the next map. It is linear and it make sure we do anything needed to progress to the next level. I have no problem with this but this is old mechanic What i mean is games like Dark Souls encourage players to grind level to beat, meaning the challenges is fake, it is just the player is underlevelled. For example, level 30 or so character with +5 normal weapon will one hit kill all the undead in Undead Burg, only take few hits beating the Black Knight. The game is not dificult at all, it just you are underlevelled. I don't know about others, but i feel cheated by the fake challenge. The enemy not wise, they are at very same spot and doing exactly like what being scripted. The only reason you find them dificut is because you are at level 5 for example with weak weapon while they are at level 20 with good weapons. Another reason is because you don't know there's a character who sell spell, these spells one hit kill everything no matter what level you are at early level. Dark Souls players cap their level because of this, if the player go beyond everything in the game, then the game is a piece of cake. I am suggesting to change the way a computer/console game today, no longer using the old mechanic that is level up system as we see in many games today. It is old and uncreative, it have come to a point where leveling up is boring and uninteresting to do because you have to grind and grind, farming and farming...just because you want to level up and beat the challenge that only about being strong and weak. Why not like what i said i use console commad to rise my character to level 81 in Skyrim, pick all the skills i wanted, and then venture into level 80 world of Skyrim where every max level bosses are there, dragons i see are Ancient Dragons,...for me this is more realistic and immersive because my character don't have amnesia that make her forget who she was before being on the horsecart with the Stormcloack...she was a warrior let say, so logically she have some weapon skill already...so the adventure begin like that. No need to grind and grind to level up in which breaking imersion...we don't become master swordmen because we swing a sword 1000 times, we are already a swordmen, but we are a master because we can kill enemies using our sword skill. If you understand what i mean (Edit : when doing this, the dragons threat really feel a threat in Skyrim Main Quest because the dragons that show up are Ancient Dragons...but as a Dragonborn, you have the skills, it is only about how you use the skills) I think most players are already determined what class they want to play before playing and not decide during playing, i think if we just choose what class and having all the skills already, there is no need for leveling system anymore, just create the world with it's own unique challenges. There will be no bug issues, balancing issues and so on...

Having playing games for years, i have several thoughts about leveling system in games. The purpose of leveling is to create character progression isn't it? The character become stronger to face challenges in the game. But as i have played many games, i find out that recent games leveling is not enjoyeable to the point it is not necessary, and it also break immersion. For example, TES. I played Oblivion and Skyrim. The system is you have to grind your skill to level up, when you do so your skills become better, your character level up and the world itself level. But to think about it, it doesn't matter if you start the game with already max level world and your character having max level skills. I am using console command to raise my character level to the highest in Skyrim, the world also being at that level. It is a no different starting the game at level 1 world with level 1 skills. What i mean is, the game treat us as weaklings at the start of the game, then we progress in original level up system, but by using this console command, our character do have skills and not just weaklings, he/she is as ready as ever to be in the world of the same level. He/she still need gears or magic or whatever. But it save time grinding to level up to be in the said world level. Let look at Dark Souls, the world level is stagnant, you start a NG, everything in the world is as it is, enemies don't level, they are as they are. But your character is so underleveled, and that what makes the game look hard. You must harvest souls to level up, to buy or create better gears, your level is unlimited for a NG. If the player is so dedicated to level to the max, NG is a piece of cake. So what i mean is, Dark Soul leveling is to make chracater progress to become stronger, but in the end the game lost it challenges. There are certain places with hgh level enemies, but when your level is a lot higher than those enemies, the game become so easy. So Dark Soul player cap their character level just because want to preserve the challenge. For me, in modern game, level up system is a no need anymore. Game challenges are no longer about how strong or weak the character vs enemies, this is only for the games in the past such as Diablo, Dragon Age, KotOR and such games. Game developers must find new way of challenges for gamers. Level up system have become tedious nowadays where games encourage grinding to become more stronger and game challenges only resolve around that.

Yes that would be reasonable, but the internet and people in general are not very reasonable or are they? :D Metacritic hate is something very real and as Majestic said, it can be heavily gamed. Employees from game studios have been caught pushing their games with 10 raitings and users giving out 0 reviews is nothing new (with their "review" consisting of a few words like "this is crap") From a consumer viewpoint, this is pointless. Even they guys runing metacritic said that it should be not taken so seriously. Sadly some studios/publishers think this is the holy grail, going as far as tying contracts and bonus payouts to metacritic raitings. Thats silly. My point is, that there are better sources for reviews these days. I personally prefer to watch a WTF is from Totalbiscuit on a game i might be interested in. That gives me gameplay, an insight to mechanics and a bit info on the technical side. To me, this is way more informative than a metacritic score, or for that matter any scores, considering a 5 out of 10 might still be enjoyable for me even if it´s not for the critic. They give 0 because they hate the game, and they comment "this is crap" because there is nothing more to say, have no words anymore. How determined are the haters to create accounts to give "0"? The same with the ones who give "10" it is because they love it, or paid to give that, it doesnt matter. How much they can pay anyway? But from the result, if the game have no issue, the result is positive isn't it? There will be "0" ratings, there will always be "0" ratings, but we can see the result on games have less or no issue the result is positive. For the games that have a lot of issues, we can see more negative. By that alone we know the game is good or bad. Some may hate Bioware and give "0" outright, some may love Bioware and give "10" outright, we cannot generalize everyone do that. The real haters are only few, the fanatics are also few. Metacritic is genuine for me. We can see how people react toward the game and the company, not about the game only. Bioware must admit they have bad reputation in the past years, they make fans pissed off, Metacritic is one of the way to show the protest, and we can see the result

While i agree with you, i think Metacritic is worthless. Raitings can easily brought down by a small hate train. That has happened too often. Not that it matters, in my opinion no player should judge a game by their metacritic raiting or reviews from big sites/magazines. Not when it is so easy to find a bloger/youtuber etc you can "click with" and who represents your taste in gaming and even shows you gameplay. I disagree, if the game have no isses that make fans hate, then there is no reason to hate the game. People don't hate everything because they hate it. To deny metacritic is to deny the people respons. People who love the game will vote as well people who hate. Why want to deny negative result? Just because it show negatively everybody want to say "oh the haters are trolling"...

GILF terrorist

I like to play as Grey Warden again and again and again, it is what being established in DA:O and i want to get further into it

Fallout 4

That's not a bad idea since Obsidian does implement unarmed combat in KotOR 2, why not?

Yeah, but Corypeus was there, alive, killing the Archdemon in DA:O become insignificant because of this, he's alive all the time. I mean the grandeur of sinking the blade into Archdemon heart to stop the 5th Blight become nothing. It also making all the event of DA2 is not important at all. It just about some people going crazy and Hawke kill them all. It is because the real villain of the whole 3 series is there, ALIVE They better make it the main character is a Grey Warden (don't have to be The Warden) for DA2 and DA:I, the whole story could be more interesting and we can connect it all from begining, it could be more interesting trilogy. They can make how a Grey Warden involve in solving the world problem and at last find the culprit or the one who started the whole mess from the ancient time But it is too late now

I like "police story" so maybe investigating intergalactic crimes that actually led by "someone" who have a big agenda, "the illuminati", for example they want to turn everyone into space zombies as slave labor transported into an unknown planet, to build a city of humanoid lizard hybrid who want to control the whole galaxy, they conpire wars to create more dead bodies...

I was believing that Dragon Age (Origin) is actually a random stories from their dusty cabinet put together in one universe, well it actually does look like that, but it is beautifully done. DA:O is the basis of the universe we know as Dragon Age. Sadly they change much in DA2 and now DA3 making everything nonsensical and pointless I don't know where to begin...the problem of DA story is because of it's continuous, after DA:O, then DA2, these two share the same timelines, characters and all but it is totally different thing as the whole. Then Inquisition similar like DA2 sharing same characters of previous games meaning the timeline is not so far away...the is supposed or expected to be "Mage vs Templar War" but we see nothing about that. It just random. So the conclusion we can make from the three game is Corypheus is the culprit...the end. The Warden killing Archdemon is not so epic now because the real villain since DA:O is Corypheus. Everything The Warden do doesn't matter now. Hawke killing many things in DA2 is just nothing, Hawke is not even significant in DA:I. The whole 3 games happen because of Corypeus. For a story "about Thedas" time frame shouldn't be too near, it should be far away so they can make a new fresh story per series. Because of this they change many things, want to fulfil fans demands, want to use fan service characters for example. If Leliana was dead, then she's more powerful than Andraste....it makes Andraste is a meh...Andraste was burned and dead, Andraste cannot live again to smite the Imperium, but Leliana can...i will not be surprise if they make Leliana is Andraste reborn next...

Good question, make it only the one who have the perk can use the items (edit: by means activating them), and more perks in it can use the item more effectively. So level up system must be made that for each classess will have different points progression. Example, Soldier class will have only few skill points than combat points to invest in each level ups About the second issue, make it that items we created are better than we can buy. The shops only sell basic items, and some rare items. We can create what the shop don't sell. So that's what skill perk investment count

Then you are making a gear based game, which is okay single player, but makes characters too undifferentiated in a party based game. You could take the approach of "must have tier 3 Heavy Weapons skill to use a bazooka" "must have tier 1 Armour skill in order to equip a hazmat suit", and so on. But still need a bit of "space magic" in order to do things other than inflict damage and protect, such as devices that buff team members, and that kind of thing. And if you don't have them, the game becomes tactically rather limited. What i have in my mind actually is the "magic" part doesn't have to be a skill, but from items with charges or use once and once only. Healing group for example, you must have an item that when you activate it will heal group "somehow", call it "space magic" if you want. This item can be crafted at lab when having certain perk or buy at shop. We also can create or buy other items with other "magical" effects. (Edit : oh yes we can upgrade next "magical" items we created). The rest of things can be like KotOR. Our party members can be a specialist in something, so they already have perks needed, but of course we can customize them.

Yeah, that's what i actually want to say, my English is bad. If they want to experiments, don't do it on already established francise, do it on new fresh francise. There will be no problem and the fans will not raged. All they need to do for DA is upgrade, tweak and fixing, not change it into something else. That is why i don't understand, those DA:O "fans" hate DA:O so much and pushing Bioware to change the game, how come? They even hate Grey Warden, Darkspawn and the Blight in which the central issue of the game. How come they are fans of DA:O but they hate everything in DA:O? Then they prising DA2 so high and pushing Bioware make DA:I as we can see now....I doubt they are actually fans, but Bio-EA staffs... Now and future Bioware games are all Mass Effect-like with Skyrim open world map, MMO quests and FPS combat mechanic, so that's what they want. Every games from now on will look like that I am fine by that, on new francise, just don't ruin DA with it, but it is too late now...

No need for magic, just make weapons or items that can deal AoE attack, bazooka for example, then make items and armors giving buffs. So we can build any character that can do all those stuff "scientifically"

I don't post much at BSN, so I can't comment on the moderators there, but I wanted to say... Dragon Age: Origins was basically a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate as far as gameplay mechanics and a few other elements. After that, BioWare wasn't really obligated to keep rehashing that formula. I think they wanted to try their own style. They failed at establishing their own style with Inquisition, but I think that was their thought process. As a few have pointed out, they drew inspiration from too many sources that ended up clashing. The DA:O-type games aren't seen much these days. I wouldn't mind if that combat system returned, but I doubt it will. i was active on BSN and their new site "The Bioware Forum" until i got banned after being harrassed by forumites and the mods. My last argument there was about what i have written here, so by the way thanks Obsidian for practicing free speech The problem is, they want to implement new system into already established games the fans loved, "fans" here means the one who love everything in the original game because that game is the fans recognized being "Dragon Age". When it changed into Mass Effect in DA2 then it is no longer Dragon Age, and now it chaged into another and it's unrecognized It is like fans love Master of Puppet because that's the identity of Metallica song, fans know the arrangements, the composition, the guitar strumming and drum beatings, it is all Metallica style. But suddenly Metalica made their next song in the new album "Master of Puppet 2" they add hip hop, jazz, and funky element. Maybe some people will like it but core Metallica fans will pissed off because it is not metal anymore It is ok if they want to make new things but do not make it into the already established genre, make it in new genre, new label. Metallica could make funky songs but make it in new album that is not related at all with their previous products, in new label, "This is funky songs by Metallica for the ones who love funky music", they can continue with their original metal songs in another album "Master of Puppet 2" the same time, the fans will not get angry. Same with Bioware, they made Dragon Age:Origin like it were, they only need to upgrade, not change the whole thing into someting new. If they want to change their way of things, make it into new games under new label, not on Dragon Age.

Prophets does miracles with God's permission, in Islam. I think we should stop here unless you want to turn this into Christian vs Islam and surely the mods will not like it.

I think Obsidian should make Sci Fi game like KotOR 2 but without lightsaber and Jedis. i think it will be cool. Gunslinger build is popular in KotOR, but i like heavy rifles better because they look sexy. So there should be a transport that is also our base, a spacecraft. There should be crafting we we can modify or even create weapons and armors, creating bombs and mines, making stimulants and med packs. We can upgrade our spacecraft, there should be spacecraft battles, or maybe even large scale space battle and we act as wing leader. It will be cool if there is also missions involving bombing enemy bases or something The main theme could be we are a space police force, but we can pick up party members from various background along the way. Or maybe we may choose our faction, everything else turns out depends on what faction we choose in our journey.

But explanation behind miracles that Jesus could perform was much more mundane than that, as he was God's incarnation as God's son that God sent to teach and die for human kind. Meaning that any action that he did weren't actually miracle because he is omnipotent and omniscient creator of the everything. Only people who don't really have faith would call his actions as miracles, for people of faith they are just lessons by their God. That's Christians point of view, I am a Muslim, i don't believe Jesus is Son of God and God, i don't believe Jesus was crucified. Giving explanation on something suposed to be miracle lessen the miracle. Jesus being Son of God and God lessen the suprise that is the miracle. What is the suprise if Jesus doing miracles if Jesus is Son of God and God? Other prophets also doing miracles and they are not Son of God and God. So what makes Jesus special in doing miracles if he is Son of God and God? My statement/argument above is not religious debate, it just want to point things out.

Yes Dragon Age have lost its identity, that is something i repeatedly mention in their forum many times. When DA2 become like Mass Effect then everything have lost actually. Not only become like Mass Effect, but also a drama. Then they want to make it into Skyrim. I don't mind about open world environment but it doesn't have to be like Skyrim. They can maintain Dragon Age:Origin mechanic, but they don't want to. They can maintain the main theme is about Darkspawn then put the rest into anything like Dragon Age:Origin, but again they don't want to. So what is Dragon Age? It just random, once you play it you don't care about it anymore. The game is not even about dragons and not even about the age of dragons. The dragons in it are just monsters to kill. I just don't understand arguments of Dragon Age:Origin fans that hate Dragon Age:Origin so much and force Bioware to change Dragon Age games after Dragon Age:Origin, and Bioware listen to them...i just don't get it....they are so sensitive when we wrote "let it be like Dragon Age:Origin", we will see lots of fans charging with with their lances to shut us up, and the mods come with their hammer...i just don't understand....

Well if the game is about Batman, you play as Batman and feel being Batman, then it is an RPG, you are indeed role playing as Batman, not your self. See, that's simple. If you are playing as your self, then it is not an RPG. If the game is an RPG but failed to make the player role playing then it is a bad RPG FPS is not an RPG because you need your own reflex, not the character. Your character is just an avatar of you in the game. Dark Souls is still an RPG because the mechanic not 100% depends on your reflex, the camera lock and stats still count. It's a partial RPG What happen today is gamers and game companies want to justify FPS games as RPG is because of they want to make future games for consoles.

RPG is a Role-Playing Games, the game where the player is playing a role, meaning you as player playing a role in said game A "role" that need an interpretation, since playing a role doesn't always means playing a character, but a character is a role. For example, in an act, you play a role of a king but also play a character of a king, let say "King Arthur", you not only play a role of a king but the character himself. But if playing a role itself is not playing the character of said story. A role of a king is not King Arthur the person. So there should be RPG and CPG...CPG is Character Playing Games in which most Bioware games now is As a definition that isn't very useful, since it makes the majority of computer games, from Donkey Kong to Call of Duty, RPGs. What I consider a CRPG is a game that tries to emulate the experience of playing a Pen and Paper RPG, which is why I consider things like an interactive party and stat based combat important. I think you misunderstand my statement, playing a role and playing a character is actually different. It is like an actor who play in any act, he/she play the character of the story, the character who have a role, example "King Arthur" is a character, his role is a King. So playing "King Arthur" is both playing a character and a role in the opera/theatre/movie... But in video games, there are two types of character, a blank one and the one who have a backstory and everything. So a blank character when played, we play only role, there is not much character to play with. The example is in Dark Souls, you play whatever class you choose, if you play Knight then a Knight you are, the role to begin with is a Knight, but you may build your character freely. Non-blank character have origin, background, backstory and everything that being established before you choose them. the example is in Dragon Age:Origin. When you choose Human Noble means you choose a character that is "Whatevername" Cousland (there is actually a default name). This is the character you want to play, then you choose your class, this is your role. If you choose a Warrior class then you play "Whatevername" Cousland and his/her role is a Warrior in said family. Now that is character and class role. He/she is also the second son/daughter of a TLord of the land. That is another role. Later he/she becomes a Grey Warden, another role. Of course some games allow choices, these choices are actually illusion, it just an option to the players to direct their character path, on how the story will turn out Most players CONFUSED when playing such game, they put in themselves into the character. It is easy to play blank character where you may make whatever you want, you may pretend that character is you even because of it's nature. But the non-blank character you cannot do so, you are supposed to play that character and his/her role in the game, but most players REFUSE to accept the role and putting themselves in, they whine on forums demanding this and that, the devs listen to them and the next game ruined, for example Dragon Age:Inquisition...the main character is RUINED So what is RPG? It supposed to be "Role Playing", not playing as yourself I give another example, if you play as a said good Archer, but the game is FPS, your reflex suck, you cannot aim and shoot properly because you just suck playing FPS games, is that playing a role? NO

RPG is a Role-Playing Games, the game where the player is playing a role, meaning you as player playing a role in said game A "role" that need an interpretation, since playing a role doesn't always means playing a character, but a character is a role. For example, in an act, you play a role of a king but also play a character of a king, let say "King Arthur", you not only play a role of a king but the character himself. But if playing a role itself is not playing the character of said story. A role of a king is not King Arthur the person. So there should be RPG and CPG...CPG is Character Playing Games in which most Bioware games now is