30 minutes of Dragon Age Inquisition

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

Damn this looks amazing!!!!

Loading Video...

#2 Posted by Ish_basic (4107 posts) -

Yay for realistic ground cover. Amazing what some real grass can do to bring a world to life.

Hopefully the area shown is an indication of what all/most of the game areas are like - overarching quest with multiple points of interaction, optional explorable areas and just the general open ended-ness. Would be a huge improvement over the recycled tile sets of previous BioWare games.

They're really saying all the right things and what they're showing looks really fun. Wasn't really expecting anything from this and now it's leaped up there with Witcher 3 and Destiny on my most anticipated list.

#3 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

Saw it earlier today. Looks absolutely fantastic. Why oh why do these game companies sit on great stuff like this and instead opt to show us some crappy "action & cinematics" 2-minute trailers?

Dragon Age was a fantastic game. Dragon Age II stumbled a bit, but it did try something new and it was a genuinely great game as well. But Inquisition seems to be really pushing it forward. At first when they said it's open world, I thought it'd be like The Elder Scrolls, but I'm happy to see that it's still structured like a BioWare game but with massive, massive areas. The tactical view is back which is fucking awesome. Stop dumbing down RPG's for the action fans! And rain. We need more rain in video games, especially RPG's.

#4 Edited by valium88 (4455 posts) -

Cool vid, thanks! I've seen the gameplay before in an earlier showing, but this one was better. I can't wait for this game!

#5 Posted by cyborg100000 (2870 posts) -

I see the tactical view's back. I hope they succeed in making a great game, I've only played DA:O once but it was pretty epic, if a little too traditional fantasy for my liking, but that's just preference.

#6 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

Yeah, this looks really good. I hope the tactical view makes it's way to the console versions. Perhaps the PS4's touchpad could be used to great effect here... maybe a good implementation for Kinect on the Xbox One?

Regardless, looks great. I was in the minority that enjoyed Dragon Age II so I've been looking forward to this for a while.

#7 Edited by HipHopBeats (2718 posts) -

Looks pretty good. I'll keep this one on the radar.

#8 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ UpInFlames

You do realise Bioware wasn't really dumbing down RPGs, they were just trying to evolve them, the genre is pretty outdated and flawed, but obviously nobody wants that so now we're gona end up with new RPGs that are better in all the wrong places. :(

#9 Edited by Ish_basic (4107 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ UpInFlames

You do realise Bioware wasn't really dumbing down RPGs, they were just trying to evolve them, the genre is pretty outdated and flawed, but obviously nobody wants that so now we're gona end up with new RPGs that are better in all the wrong places. :(

Dragon Age was trying to throw it back to games like Baldur's Gate, where battles weren't fought with levels or mashing the dps button. In a typical battle in BG2, I might scout the area first with my thief, avoiding detection. When I found an enemy, I'd then select a battlefield and prepare it by positioning my party, laying traps and making sure the proper spells were prepared. Then I'd lure the enemy in, taking advantage of the battlefield - maybe it forms a natural bottleneck, so I might prepare a mage with cloudkill, using it to whittle down the enemy, then laying in with my warrior to engage and hold the remaining foes, sneak attacking with my rogue. You play battles this way not just because it's fun, but because you'll die elsewise. What we've seen from BioWare combat since then absolutely is a dumbing down, so DA taking it back to this more tactical approach is a wonderful move.

That said, BioWare is utterly incompetent at delivering a balanced rule set when it's not provided to them outright, so I fully expect problems there. Also, I doubt the actual extent of player agency will be to as great a degree as they say, just judging by every BioWare game ever - probably a lot of illusion of choice and funneling of different decisions into similar outcomes. But they're saying the right things and it does look fun, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it just might be.

#10 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (19043 posts) -

Not bad at all, definitely looks like something any RPG buff will eagerly await. I see a few problems though: the companions still look like wooden puppets when standing still, I hoped we'd have some sort of idle animation by now or have them wander around and take a little initiative when waiting for you to move on, feel more alive, you know? Facial animations are still fairly crap, it's hard to believe this comes from the same company that makes Mass Effect, I'll never know why they can't catch up in that regard. No jumping or swimming, as far as I could tell from skipping around the video, which strikes me as odd considering they are going for an idea of freedom of action. No sneaking either, looks like every time you get close to enemies it triggers a battle no matter what you do. I guess the whole "open world" label only goes so far in this case, which I guess is ok, Dragon Age is doing its own thing and that's not necessarily bad.

#11 Posted by LeftClick007 (77 posts) -

I think this looks freakin awesome

@Ish_basic said:

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ UpInFlames

You do realise Bioware wasn't really dumbing down RPGs, they were just trying to evolve them, the genre is pretty outdated and flawed, but obviously nobody wants that so now we're gona end up with new RPGs that are better in all the wrong places. :(

Dragon Age was trying to throw it back to games like Baldur's Gate, where battles weren't fought with levels or mashing the dps button. In a typical battle in BG2, I might scout the area first with my thief, avoiding detection. When I found an enemy, I'd then select a battlefield and prepare it by positioning my party, laying traps and making sure the proper spells were prepared. Then I'd lure the enemy in, taking advantage of the battlefield - maybe it forms a natural bottleneck, so I might prepare a mage with cloudkill, using it to whittle down the enemy, then laying in with my warrior to engage and hold the remaining foes, sneak attacking with my rogue. You play battles this way not just because it's fun, but because you'll die elsewise. What we've seen from BioWare combat since then absolutely is a dumbing down, so DA taking it back to this more tactical approach is a wonderful move.

That said, BioWare is utterly incompetent at delivering a balanced rule set when it's not provided to them outright, so I fully expect problems there. Also, I doubt the actual extent of player agency will be to as great a degree as they say, just judging by every BioWare game ever - probably a lot of illusion of choice and funneling of different decisions into similar outcomes. But they're saying the right things and it does look fun, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it just might be.

Yes! Origins was great and was a good challenge on the highest difficulty, not sure but I think it was called Nightmare difficulty and it sure as hell was, but it was so satisfying to beat the game on that setting. If I remember they patched the game to make it easier cause too many people were complaining about the highest difficulty being too hard, I was fine with it pre patch and I hope they make the highest difficulty a real challenge in this next installment.

#12 Edited by jhonmarvi (13 posts) -


such a nice game

The in-game footage is filmed on shakycam by an amateur Paul Greengrass in the audience, and sees BioWare showcase the area of Crestwood, home to the village of, er, Crestwood. In the Blight, Crestwood remained relatively unblighted - but since it entered under the player’s protection, it’s come under attack from Red Templars (distinguished from bog standard Templars by their fondness for mauve and, presumably, ideology).

Thus the player has returned to show that an Inquisitor’s word is no small matter, and to take on the leadership of the defending forces. They arrive to find warboats have already spilled bads onto the shore, and a Northern Lightsy glow above the water. The disemboid voice of BioWare explains that this signifies the presence of a tear in the Veil, the place Dragon Age’s wizards mediate with and also where its demons reside, somewhere beneath. It’s inaccessible now, but players will have the option of returning later in the game to close it.

#13 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ Ish_basic "I might scout the area first with my

thief, avoiding detection"

Its an RPG, you don't do the actual scouting, you choose and issue the order and your thief does it, success/failure or overall magnitute of the execution is purely dependen't on numerical attributes, not player execution as it would in a real stealth game like Splinter Cell or Batman.

"What we've seen from BioWare combat

since then absolutely is a dumbing down"

Back then RPGs were played with pause menus and battles were nothing more than complex numerical comparisons only accounts have wet dreams about, it was complexity for the sake of complexity Reinforced through the game's lore instead of through its gameplay

I'm all for a tactical approach to combat but not if the gameplay mechanics conflict with the context/narrative.

"Also, I doubt the actual extent of

player agency will be to as great a degree as they

say, just judging by every BioWare game ever - probably a lot of illusion of choice and funneling of

different decisions into similar outcomes." Classic Bioware :).

#14 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ LeftClick007

Damage Sponges and One hit kills ?

Oh no that doesn't sound cheap at all.

#15 Posted by bussinrounds (2284 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ Ish_basic "I might scout the area first with my

thief, avoiding detection"

Its an RPG, you don't do the actual scouting, you choose and issue the order and your thief does it, success/failure or overall magnitute of the execution is purely dependen't on numerical attributes, not player execution as it would in a real stealth game like Splinter Cell or Batman.

"What we've seen from BioWare combat

since then absolutely is a dumbing down"

Back then RPGs were played with pause menus and battles were nothing more than complex numerical comparisons only accounts have wet dreams about, it was complexity for the sake of complexity Reinforced through the game's lore instead of through its gameplay

I'm all for a tactical approach to combat but not if the gameplay mechanics conflict with the context/narrative.

"Also, I doubt the actual extent of

player agency will be to as great a degree as they

say, just judging by every BioWare game ever - probably a lot of illusion of choice and funneling of

different decisions into similar outcomes." Classic Bioware :).

FFS, why does every bullshit criticism of old RPG's see 'number crunching' as some integral part of the combat that makes it too difficult? Dungeon Master? Was that full of 'number crunching'? Might and Magic? Gold Box? Ultima? Sure there were stats and modifiers but to speak as if the combat was some arcane thing which the poor 'average gamer' couldn't be able to work out is a load of shit. Actual combat was for the most part simple to execute-either click on the beast or select an attack from a list and the computer does the rest...what's the problem here? That you have to work out what attacks, weapons, spells work best? That's the REAL 'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually had to THINK during combat encounters instead of clickety f-ing click! Right ? "OH NO!, IT'S THAC0! Run boy and girls, he's gonna make our brain hurt!"

Media and developers help reinforce the notion that that we're better off just spamming the left-click button until the world explodes and we're covered in a pile of steaming achievement-bullshit that tells us how great we are and how fantastic it is that we were able to push that left-click button enough to kill Monster #22151551254

#16 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

@bussinrounds said:

FFS, why does every bullshit criticism of old RPG's see 'number crunching' as some integral part of the combat that makes it too difficult? Dungeon Master? Was that full of 'number crunching'? Might and Magic? Gold Box? Ultima? Sure there were stats and modifiers but to speak as if the combat was some arcane thing which the poor 'average gamer' couldn't be able to work out is a load of shit. Actual combat was for the most part simple to execute-either click on the beast or select an attack from a list and the computer does the rest...what's the problem here? That you have to work out what attacks, weapons, spells work best? That's the REAL 'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually had to THINK during combat encounters instead of clickety f-ing click! Right ? "OH NO!, IT'S THAC0! Run boy and girls, he's gonna make our brain hurt!"

Media and developers help reinforce the notion that that we're better off just spamming the left-click button until the world explodes and we're covered in a pile of steaming achievement-bullshit that tells us how great we are and how fantastic it is that we were able to push that left-click button enough to kill Monster #22151551254

Great post. Action fans, just stick with your fucking action games and leave RPG's to be, you know, RPG's.

#17 Edited by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@bussinrounds said:

FFS, why does every bullshit criticism of old RPG's see 'number crunching' as some integral part of the combat that makes it too difficult? Dungeon Master? Was that full of 'number crunching'? Might and Magic? Gold Box? Ultima? Sure there were stats and modifiers but to speak as if the combat was some arcane thing which the poor 'average gamer' couldn't be able to work out is a load of shit. Actual combat was for the most part simple to execute-either click on the beast or select an attack from a list and the computer does the rest...what's the problem here? That you have to work out what attacks, weapons, spells work best? That's the REAL 'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually had to THINK during combat encounters instead of clickety f-ing click! Right ? "OH NO!, IT'S THAC0! Run boy and girls, he's gonna make our brain hurt!"

Media and developers help reinforce the notion that that we're better off just spamming the left-click button until the world explodes and we're covered in a pile of steaming achievement-bullshit that tells us how great we are and how fantastic it is that we were able to push that left-click button enough to kill Monster #22151551254

Uh you have to think in action games, just about 1000x quicker and then translate that into precise button commands. So no. Just cause you get to sit around and plan for 20 minutes with 15 menus doesn't make it better or more complex.

Planning is great, but real time combat and planning are not mutually exclusive. RPGs can have good action, most chose not to.

The problem is there are people that don't like action. You don't like having to have proper button skills, or have to face off against enemies that can beat the crap out of you through skill not some level difference. Some people rather just read a bunch of numbers and commands, press a button and watch the action unfold itself. And that is fine.

#18 Posted by Ish_basic (4107 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

@bussinrounds said:

FFS, why does every bullshit criticism of old RPG's see 'number crunching' as some integral part of the combat that makes it too difficult? Dungeon Master? Was that full of 'number crunching'? Might and Magic? Gold Box? Ultima? Sure there were stats and modifiers but to speak as if the combat was some arcane thing which the poor 'average gamer' couldn't be able to work out is a load of shit. Actual combat was for the most part simple to execute-either click on the beast or select an attack from a list and the computer does the rest...what's the problem here? That you have to work out what attacks, weapons, spells work best? That's the REAL 'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually had to THINK during combat encounters instead of clickety f-ing click! Right ? "OH NO!, IT'S THAC0! Run boy and girls, he's gonna make our brain hurt!"

Media and developers help reinforce the notion that that we're better off just spamming the left-click button until the world explodes and we're covered in a pile of steaming achievement-bullshit that tells us how great we are and how fantastic it is that we were able to push that left-click button enough to kill Monster #22151551254

Uh you have to think in action games, just about 1000x quicker and then translate that into precise button commands. So no. Just cause you get to sit around and plan for 20 minutes with 15 menus doesn't make it better or more complex.

Planning is great, but real time combat and planning are not mutually exclusive. RPGs can have good action, most chose not to.

The problem is there are people that don't like action. You don't like having to have proper button skills, or have to face off against enemies that can beat the crap out of you through skill not some level difference. Some people rather just read a bunch of numbers and commands, press a button and watch the action unfold itself. And that is fine.

That's not really it. The point of the design is so that you can control multiple units on the battlefield and synergize their various abilities. The problem with the console versions of Dragon Age is that strategy is unnecessary so the slow pace seems to be also. Forerunners to the DA franchise on PC really require you to input commands for your party members for just about every step, whereas on the console version of DA you can largely ignore what everyone else is doing. That's not how this style of game was designed to be played in its originality difficulty level.

Much like with an RTS, the battle in a BG style RPG moves very quickly and you don't have the time to wait for attack animations let alone perform whole combos - so forget Bayonetta style action - the rest of your party will be dead while you're juggling one guy. BioWare designed DA to play the way it does on consoles because of the typical stereotype that consolers don't want to think and just want to mash their dps buttons to win. However, the games on which this particular model is based revolve around very quick battles, even the most mundane of which can kill the player if he's not managing his party closely. Consider that the rulesets from which this combat derives from has abilities like Powerword: Kill and Devastating Critical, all of which can kill you instantly, so taking your eye off the entirety of the field to manually swing one character's sword is just not an option.

#19 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

@dvader654 said:

@bussinrounds said:

FFS, why does every bullshit criticism of old RPG's see 'number crunching' as some integral part of the combat that makes it too difficult? Dungeon Master? Was that full of 'number crunching'? Might and Magic? Gold Box? Ultima? Sure there were stats and modifiers but to speak as if the combat was some arcane thing which the poor 'average gamer' couldn't be able to work out is a load of shit. Actual combat was for the most part simple to execute-either click on the beast or select an attack from a list and the computer does the rest...what's the problem here? That you have to work out what attacks, weapons, spells work best? That's the REAL 'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually had to THINK during combat encounters instead of clickety f-ing click! Right ? "OH NO!, IT'S THAC0! Run boy and girls, he's gonna make our brain hurt!"

Media and developers help reinforce the notion that that we're better off just spamming the left-click button until the world explodes and we're covered in a pile of steaming achievement-bullshit that tells us how great we are and how fantastic it is that we were able to push that left-click button enough to kill Monster #22151551254

Uh you have to think in action games, just about 1000x quicker and then translate that into precise button commands. So no. Just cause you get to sit around and plan for 20 minutes with 15 menus doesn't make it better or more complex.

Planning is great, but real time combat and planning are not mutually exclusive. RPGs can have good action, most chose not to.

The problem is there are people that don't like action. You don't like having to have proper button skills, or have to face off against enemies that can beat the crap out of you through skill not some level difference. Some people rather just read a bunch of numbers and commands, press a button and watch the action unfold itself. And that is fine.

That's not really it. The point of the design is so that you can control multiple units on the battlefield and synergize their various abilities. The problem with the console versions of Dragon Age is that strategy is unnecessary so the slow pace seems to be also. Forerunners to the DA franchise on PC really require you to input commands for your party members for just about every step, whereas on the console version of DA you can largely ignore what everyone else is doing. That's not how this style of game was designed to be played in its originality difficulty level.

Much like with an RTS, the battle in a BG style RPG moves very quickly and you don't have the time to wait for attack animations let alone perform whole combos - so forget Bayonetta style action - the rest of your party will be dead while you're juggling one guy. BioWare designed DA to play the way it does on consoles because of the typical stereotype that consolers don't want to think and just want to mash their dps buttons to win. However, the games on which this particular model is based revolve around very quick battles, even the most mundane of which can kill the player if he's not managing his party closely. Consider that the rulesets from which this combat derives from has abilities like Powerword: Kill and Devastating Critical, all of which can kill you instantly, so taking your eye off the entirety of the field to manually swing one character's sword is just not an option.

Well then they should commit to one or the other. I love Xcom cause its a full on turn based strategy game. But some of these RPGs and there auto attack, and Ai routines just have you doing very little. Real time and step by step commands to everyone on a squad never jelled for me, its why stuff like Xcom really engages me and RTS just makes me lost. If its going to be step by step then make it turn based. If you go real time embrace the action.

#20 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ bussinrounds

I never said it was difficult, I said it was complicated, once I memorize the Pattern I can play any RPG on Autopilot, complicated but easy.

"That's the REAL

'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually

had to THINK during combat encounters instead of

clickety f-ing click! Right ?"

LOL ! Not at all, sir. Infact I figured out a long time ago that there different types of damages in the game and all you one has to do is match the right type of attack with the right type of weakness, pretty freaking simple.......yet tedius.

Would conclude that Trine 2 is the best modern RPG to do date, simple and practical, no button mashing there. :) now come Closer and let Lulu smell your hair !

#21 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ dvader654 "The problem is there are people that don't like

action. You don't like having to have proper button

skills, or have to face off against enemies that can

beat the crap out of you through skill not some

level difference. Some people rather just read a

bunch of numbers and commands, press a button and watch the action unfold itself. And that is fine."

I totally agree. Infact the only Reason I bitch and complain so much about this is because practical Role Playing is so damn rare. Its frustrating when a Studio like Bioware almost gets it right, so close.

#22 Posted by bussinrounds (2284 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

Well then they should commit to one or the other. I love Xcom cause its a full on turn based strategy game. But some of these RPGs and there auto attack, and Ai routines just have you doing very little. Real time and step by step commands to everyone on a squad never jelled for me, its why stuff like Xcom really engages me and RTS just makes me lost. If its going to be step by step then make it turn based. If you go real time embrace the action.

Agreed. The real time with pause combat is just way too chaotic and clusterfucky for me. Give me the control and feedback of a well done turn based combat system any day.

RTS/RtwP games are a lot about fighting the interface the fastest.

In a TB game, nothing happens until you click "move". This allows you to relax more, since you know everyone is going to do what you said and then you get to assess the situation all over. In RTWP you have to constantly watch everything with your finger on the pause. Sometimes, not being ready to pause can mean death, so you cannot let your attention waver.

And concerning action rpgs and 'embracing the action'...

The problem is, the standard of gameplay isn't very high in action rpgs (barring the rare game like Dark Souls), so if I'm gonna go that route, I'd rather just play a true action game. (speaking strictly from a gameplay perspective here)

#23 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ bussinrounds "In a TB game, nothing happens until you click

"move". This allows you to relax more, since you

know everyone is going to do what you said and

then you get to assess the situation all over."

I never really liked this structure because its usually contextually dishonest. In real combat you don't take turns, to me it feels like hand holding, or even alil condescending, the game is impying I'm not smart enough to come up with a good strategy under proper real time combat conditions.

The only time TB makes sense is if the context states that the stakes are not high, because honestly if the fate of the world is hanging in the Balance, does it really make sense to use the "hold still while I clobber you" Philosophy ? Be honest......

#24 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ bussinrounds "In a TB game, nothing happens until you click

"move". This allows you to relax more, since you

know everyone is going to do what you said and

then you get to assess the situation all over."

I never really liked this structure because its usually contextually dishonest. In real combat you don't take turns, to me it feels like hand holding, or even alil condescending, the game is impying I'm not smart enough to come up with a good strategy under proper real time combat conditions.

The only time TB makes sense is if the context states that the stakes are not high, because honestly if the fate of the world is hanging in the Balance, does it really make sense to use the "hold still while I clobber you" Philosophy ? Be honest......

Well in most real time RPGs you are pausing the game so its not really real time either.

#25 Posted by bussinrounds (2284 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ bussinrounds "In a TB game, nothing happens until you click

"move". This allows you to relax more, since you

know everyone is going to do what you said and

then you get to assess the situation all over."

I never really liked this structure because its usually contextually dishonest. In real combat you don't take turns, to me it feels like hand holding, or even alil condescending, the game is impying I'm not smart enough to come up with a good strategy under proper real time combat conditions.

The only time TB makes sense is if the context states that the stakes are not high, because honestly if the fate of the world is hanging in the Balance, does it really make sense to use the "hold still while I clobber you" Philosophy ? Be honest......

I'm not really looking for realism out of my fantasy/post-apoc/sci-fi.....rpgs. If I'm playing Arma or something, well yea, that's a different story.

TB and Phase-based is about effective using limited actions which is good for tactics. RT promotes reaction which is good for action.

#26 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ dvader654

Yeah I don't like that either. Thats why I play Mass Effect 3 with shortcuts

#27 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ bussinrounds

Hmmmm...... Okay Then.

Hugs & Kisses ! :)

#28 Edited by Speqktrum (6 posts) -

OMG I cannot WAIT for this game! <3 Dragon Age :)

#29 Edited by Ballroompirate (23697 posts) -

I loved DA Origins and I have to say I even enjoyed DA2, DA3 looks absolutely fantastic.

#30 Posted by johnd13 (8213 posts) -

This looks awesome! Great find TC. DA Origins is one of my favorite games(even though I've just played it once) and I've yet to play DA 2. Inquisition seems really capable of taking the best of the previous games and presenting us with an astonishing RPG. I hope Bioware won't fail us.

#31 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ johnd13

Threaten them with Pastry, it worked well last time.

#32 Posted by ReturnedBro (56 posts) -

@dvader654: It does look great, but it looks intimidating in terms of the hardware it'll need to be run well in all its graphical glory. It even seems like the hardware these guys were using to demo it seemed insufficient for the task at hand - it looked choppy in quite a few instances, but I didn't watch the entire thirty minutes. Maybe it's just a bad recording?

#33 Posted by t1striker (1549 posts) -

Wow I don't think me and Lulu_Lulu will ever be able to get along if we met eachother.

Not all games need to be realistic, if a veteran soldier was actually in some of the situations in these turn-based games, they wouldn't stand a chance at all, without being able to think things through. This is why this is a game, and not the real world.

Rpgs realistic, man people thinking like this must be why it's hard to find a good RPG in this day and age.

#34 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18328 posts) -

@ t1striker

2 shots of Vodka and you'l love me ! :D

Besides a game being unrealistic is just as bad, but realism is not the issue, its Practicallity. Turn base combat was practical in the yugi yoh games, but it would be impractical in Dragon Age. Plus on top of that, the unrealistic nature of the game (yugi yoh) coinsides with the unrealistic gameplay.

And most importantly, I'm not looking for a good RPG, theres a butload of those, I'm finding it difficult to find an RPG thats a good game, thats right, you heard me.... If The Elder's Scroll has taught me anything its that you don't have to make a good game to make a good RPG. *mind blown* :O