If you play on hard or nightmare it requires tons of strategy to succeed. I'm not really going to debate that, because it is a fact. If you play in those modes and run around whacky-whacky style you won't last 30 seconds.
People seem to think because DA2 is flawed it is automatically terrible, or because it is faster it is automatically an action game. I find these conclusions pretty preposterous.
I failed to find where anyone claimed DA2 was an action game… However, it was bland and streamlined to the point that it was no longer a fun RP experience for me.
DA2 was not enjoyable for many people, for some it was even terrible. The technical flaws like area reuse or parachuting/spawning enemies might have been a big issue for some. But that was tangent to my main issue(s), I just didn't find the gameplay engaging or entertaining. The game felt too "accessible".
Admittedly, the skill system in DA:O was poorly conceived and/or implemented, that is hardly reason enough to remove it. In DAO lock picking was both a function of cunning and it's corresponding talent(which should have been a skill). The equation was something along the lines of: cunning-10+(deft hands level * 10). So even in DA:O a character with 70 cunning and 0 in the lock picking talent could still open all locks… That makes very little sense much like what's going on in DA2(unless we are to use our imagination and assume the PC learned the basics of lock picking early on, even then a basic lock is nothing like an advanced lock). It's like assuming an incredible athlete will be competitive in a sport he has zero training in… FWIW, I disliked certain game mechanics or how they were implemented in DA:O. IMHO, it would have been more believable if skills were acquired or at a minimum advanced through trainers(EG Gothic).
What about alchemy/crafting? It too was also poorly implemented and/or conceived in DA:O, thus in DA2 it was streamlined to the point of obsolescence… Why bother finding the handful of ingredients scattered about? How on earth(or Thedas) will finding a plant or two here and there allow for an alchemist or poison maker to mint a limitless quantity?
A game universe doesn't have to be "realistic", that is often boring. But it should be consistent and above all else follow it's own physics/lore/mechanics(or in other words it should be plausible). When enemy combatants don't have access to the same abilities as the PC something is amiss. For example, Hawke and company can backflip/jump through the air and/or teleport to close the gap between opponents. IIRC no human or elf enemies/combatants could do the same.
There are, no real choices, almost zero branching in the game/story… All roads lead to Rome - it is on rails aside from some superficial stuff. For a game taking place almost exclusively in one city they failed to give you, as the agent within the story, the ability to affect the world around you. Which is inexcusable since this wasn't a big wide open world, such C&C could have been easier to implement. A good city RPG would have allowed me to handle the Qunari in a number of ways. Maybe I'm RPing a xenophobe or Chantry zealot, why not side with the other zealots and kill the giant freaks first? Maybe I want fame and glory or realize the qunari are having a destabilizing affect and wish to take action? Meredith/Orsino and Anders - why must their conflicts play out the same? Because the game lacks depth/branching. Which is fine for some, but don't claim it has meaningful C&C either…
Lets not forget the whole mages vs templar conflict. Imagine rolling a party with a mage PC, anders and merrill. You are literally blowing up people in the street and the templars do/say nothing?!? That really breaks immersion, and the whole blood mage stabbing through the belly animation is pure non-sense. Hey guys let me inflict a mortal wound to enhance my magical capabilities.
My definition of RPG is pretty irrelevant, though I will provide it below. The point is that you do not define what an RPG is and then it becomes law. You say that without a firm definition the term has no meaning, but obviously that is an exaggeration just to make some kind of snarky jab. RPG implies stats, exploration, dialogue trees and other such things, even if the focus on those things varies in intensity from one RPG to another.
I'm willing to stop saying that ME series is not an RPG, if you're willing to stop labeling it as such…
I guess if I had to define the term it would be any game where your choices significantly effect the gameplay. That allows you to choose a role, which then somehow makes the game different than if you had chosen a different role. The choices offered to you could be in the realm of stats, story decision, class or even the order you go through the game. Mass Effect offers a ton of choice and ability to create a role.
If an RPG is streamlined to the point that it no longer captures the spirit behind the stats, exploration or dialogue then it is no longer a good RPG. Where does the role, not character, of Shepard affect ME1/2 game experience? Outside of combat(which is already very limited since some powers have no affect on armored, shielded or barrier opponents) where does Sheps role affect gameplay?
