š¤®The Absurdity of Breaking Objects for Resourcesš¤®
šššThis is a point that truly defies RPG logic and immersion. Someone thought it was a good idea to have players break barrels, vases, and parts of the scenery to collect valuable items, as if itās normal for honorable characters, respected leaders, or noble warriors to destroy everything around them in search of coins and resources. ššš
Ah, the epic "door puzzle" in Dragon Age: Veilguard. Ten years of development culminating in a challenge so complex it defies the limits of human comprehension: looking up. š
I can just imagine the developers' final meeting after a decade of hard workš:
Creative Director: "Gentlemen, we need a puzzle that will be the cherry on top, something that will make players question their very existence." Designer 1: "How about a four-dimensional labyrinth that shifts over time?" Designer 2: "Or maybe a riddle that requires knowledge of theoretical physics and ancient philosophy?" Lead Director: "What if... we put the three symbols to unlock the door right above it?" A deathly silence fills the room. Creative Director, tears in his eyes: "This. This is simplyā¦ brilliant!"
And thus, the supreme challenge was born: tilting your head. Because who could have guessed that, after ten years, the key to progressing in the game would be using that neglected joint between your neck and your brain?
Itās almost a transcendental experience. You traverse dark forests, battle mythical creatures, collect legendary artifacts, but nothing-nothing-prepares you for the moment when you need to look up and click on the symbols exactly as theyāre drawn on the wall. Itās as if the developers were saying: "Congratulations for making it this far. Now prove you know how to use the basic camera function."
Perhaps itās a profound critique of modern society, always looking down at the screens of our devices and forgetting to appreciate whatās above. Or maybe itās just creative laziness after a decade of trying to think of something innovative.
I can already picture the promotional trailer:
"After 10 years in production, we present the ultimate challenge. A puzzle that will test the limits of your perception. Get ready for... THE GREAT HEAD TILT!"
š¤š²š° š¤„š¤„š¤„And the beta testers?š¤„š¤„š¤„ š¤š²š°
Tester 1: "I solved the puzzle in 5 seconds." Developer, whispering: "Shh, donāt ruin this. Itās a disguised IQ test."
In the end, perhaps the real puzzle is understanding how this game took ten years to make and this was the best idea they came up with to challenge players. But hey, who are we to judge? Maybe in the next title, theyāll take twenty years, and the challenge will be to press the "Start" button.
Ultimately, I have to thank the developers for this unforgettable moment. Itās not every day you get to experience a puzzle that redefines the meaning of simplicity. And now, if youāll excuse me, I need to prepare my neck for the next revolutionary challenge: looking down.
They didn't even really pioneer this idea. Elder Scrolls did this exact thing, but Bethesda had the grace to not make the symbols a neon sign right above the door.
What bothers me most about the breakable objects is the inconsistency: either make all small, loose objects breakable, or make none of them breakable. The current mix makes the game feel less immersive. Breaking stuff here also feels more like a chore than a fun mechanic, as itās tied to finding items needed to upgrade equipment. If I donāt break every object, I risk missing out on important resources.
Instead, there could be a more engaging way to farm gold and valuablesāsomething fun and creative. Breaking objects could then be more about immersion or optional gameplay rather than a requirement. For example, you could make breaking things in town affect your reputation, leading to consequences like NPCs reacting negatively or other implications. This could add a deeper layer of strategy and role-playing. I realize this would be more complex to implement, but for a triple-A game with a 10-year development cycle, it feels like a missed opportunity.
Another issue: treasure chests. Why are they randomly scattered across the world? It feels absurd. Finding a rusty item or coins lying around makes sense, but stumbling upon a massive treasure chest in the middle of nowhere? Not so much. Chests should feel logical and intentionalāhidden in places like a dragonās lair, a villainās backroom, or a locked chest in a looted house.
If lootable items must be placed in other areas, there are better ways to do it. Replace random treasure chests with more immersive options: coins in a ruined cart, a weapon leaning against a wall, or valuables dropped by defeated enemies. Itās not rocket science, but it would make the world feel far more believable.
I completely agree with the points raised about the inconsistency and lack of immersion caused by the mechanic of breakable objects and treasure chests. The duality of some objects being breakable and others not makes the world feel disconnected and sloppy. Worse still, the system encourages players to ābreak everything compulsivelyā to avoid missing important resources, turning the experience into a tedious chore rather than something fun.
A brilliant suggestion would be to connect the playerās actions to world consequences. For example: breaking objects in cities could harm your reputation or cause NPCs to react negatively, while doing so in deserted areas would be more acceptable. This would add a layer of strategy and dramatization, transforming a boring mechanic into something with purpose.
As for treasure chests? I completely agree that their current placement is absurd. Randomly scattered chests in the middle of nowhere break any sense of logic or immersion. Replacing them with more organic options, such as coins in ruined carts, items on abandoned walls, or treasures left behind by defeated enemies, would feel much more cohesive and natural to the world.
This isnāt a difficult idea to implement; itās simply a matter of respecting the quality level expected from a AAA RPG. A game with a 10-year development cycle cannot afford to offer mechanics this lazy.
Not to mention the barriers and locked doors that 'magically' unlock all of a suddenājust because you decide to start a companion side story or something similar. Itās not even that the companion has a unique way to open them; the door might simply be open, or the barrier might suddenly vanish. It creates this weird, disjointed feeling, making the game feel overly streamlined.
And then thereās the strange mechanic with Hardingās powerāsuddenly, you can just do it yourself using Solasās knife. I mean, seriously?
Then we come to the dialogue choices. No matter how moody or intense your response seems, theyāre almost always positive. The clenched fist option, for example, looks like youāre about to give an order or threaten someone, but it ends up being a fairly polite comment anyway.
Itās like they went overboard to ensure that every line of dialogue is so safe it couldnāt possibly offend anyone. š¤
From a roleplay perspective, I don't smash crates in city streets or populated locations. In unpopulated areas I will if I think there may be a chest or crystal hiding behind some. There seems to be more than enough resources in-game to make it unnecessary, it's kind of the equivalent of Elfroot, there's more than is needed but it can be picked up.
"From a roleplaying perspective, I donāt break crates in city streets or populated areas. In deserted areas, I do it if I think there might be a chest or crystal hidden behind some."
Letās break this down. Youāre trying to justify the mechanic by saying you only ābreak things in deserted areasā? How convenient, right? This seems like a desperate attempt to rationalize something that is clearly inconsistent and poorly implemented. The fact that you have to ādecide where to breakā already shows that the mechanic is clunky and poorly designed. Comparing this to "Elfroot" does not help either; Elfroot was organically integrated into the world, while breaking barrels screams of 'lazy, forced mechanics.'
If the resource system were well-designed, we wouldnāt need this type of mental gymnastics to justify where or when breaking objects makes sense. The reality is that the mechanic makes no sense, whether in populated cities or deserted ruins.
Some of it IS really inappropriate. When you accompany Emmrich through the Necropolis he asks you to be respectful, literally as Rook is rolling through all the urns. And he doesn't have a word to say about it, at all. No one in the cities even notices you rolling or slashing or flinging spells all over the place.
My biggest gripe is how awkward it is with movement. The PC stops short, doesn't have real control, it feels like halfway through they thought they wanted to make a Hack-n-Slash, which I like and think could work, but the design of this engine is so clunky that every movement stops you short and leaves the experience very disjointed. It's no Diablo\Torchlight\BaldursGate\insert any other Hack-n-Slash of your choice.
You make an excellent point, Seasoned Scout, and Iād like to expand on what youāve brought up. The scenario with Emmrich in the Necropolis is emblematic of the disconnect between narrative and gameplay. The game sets up a tone of respect and reverence for the environment, only to undercut it entirely by incentivizing the player to smash everything in sight for resources. This lack of consistency doesnāt just break immersion ā it outright dismantles it. Itās hard to feel engaged with a world when the game itself doesnāt seem to respect its own rules.
Your critique of the movement and combat mechanics is equally valid. The clunky, stop-and-go pacing of movement makes exploration and combat feel like a chore. This is especially frustrating in a game that seems to flirt with Hack-n-Slash elements, where fluidity and responsiveness are paramount. Titles like Diablo and Torchlight excel in this genre because they understand that smooth mechanics and seamless transitions are essential for player satisfaction. By comparison, this game feels as though itās stuck in a perpetual identity crisis, not confident enough to be a true RPG, and not polished enough to be a proper action game.
Adding to that, the resource-breaking mechanic feels like a relic from an older era of game design, where smashing pots and crates was an amusing distraction rather than a core mechanic. But here, itās not only overused; itās completely at odds with the supposed narrative and thematic tone. Beyond the Necropolis example, itās jarring to see this mechanic persist in environments where destruction feels inappropriate or downright illogical. Why would a hero stop to destroy every vase in a town square? Why would NPCs turn a blind eye to such chaotic behavior?
Finally, the reliance on these mechanics highlights a deeper flaw: a lack of meaningful progression systems. If players are constantly breaking objects for resources, it suggests the game didnāt implement better ways to reward exploration or incentivize engagement. Games like Baldurās Gate or even The Witcher manage to tie exploration, story, and mechanics together in ways that feel natural and rewarding. Here, the resource-breaking feels like busywork; a symptom of design choices that prioritize filler content over meaningful player interaction.
In the end, this game tries to be everything at once and ends up excelling at none ofit. Whether itās the awkward movement, the incoherent mechanics, or the disjointed narrative elements, the experience feels less like a cohesive RPG and more like a patchwork of outdated ideas thrown together without a clear vision." ( ā ļø This is nothing short of an absolute hack job āļø ā an embarrassingly poor effort š¤¢ that reeks of amateurism and incompetence š«š)
Honestly, I find it fun, even if it breaks some of the immersion. Itās an RPG. In my game, Iām role playing as a rogue that loves to practice her moves and break stuff wherever she goes.
Interesting perspective, Mkaybellene. The idea of role-playing as a rogue who smashes everything in her path might seem like a creative justification for the mechanics at first glance. However, it's important to recognize that this is an extremely specific and isolated interpretation, conveniently tailored to make the flawed mechanic seem acceptable. The reality is that game mechanics should accommodate a wide range of characters and narratives; not just this one hyper-specific scenario of a chaos-driven rogue.
If we apply this mechanic to other archetypes (such as an intellectual mage, a devout cleric, or an honorable warrior), it completely falls apart. None of these characters would logically engage in wanton destruction. This makes the mechanic inherently incompatible with the majority of role-playing possibilities an RPG is supposed to offer.
Aligning your interpretation with the mechanic doesnāt validate the mechanic itself. Instead, it merely highlights how shallow and poorly thought-out it is. A well-designed RPG mechanic should support immersion across diverse playstyles. It should not force players into a specific mold that defies logic and breaks immersion. This design, unfortunately, feels like it was created for a generic action game with little regard for narrative depth or consistency.
So, attempting to justify a disconnected and limited mechanic with such a narrow and convenient example doesnāt fix the problem. It just highlights how far this game has strayed from the core principles of an RPG. After all, a game that sacrifices logic, coherence, and consistency for superficial, lazy design isnāt an RPG. Itās just a poorly executed action game in denial.
And letās be honest: trying to frame this as 'role-playing' is almost as convincing as claiming smashing urns in the Necropolis is a respectful cultural tribute. Amusing to imagine, but completely illogical.
Technically, you donāt have to smash things if you donāt want to. The loot usually isnāt anything spectacular. Some heartwood here and there, maybe a pot or vase that you can sell.
Iām not trying to justify the mechanic. Itās silly and clunky. But if you can allow yourself to suspend belief for a moment, it can be fun to smash a bunch of crates.
Well, you honorable warrior, why did you destroy the scaffolding in the first place? It was in first hour of game play and your actions got Varric almost killed and another companion badly hurt. Not to mention that your "honorable" actions brought Thedas on brink of destruction. You should take this argue to those who said "this is a Disney game" misleading you so bad that you though the main story is breaking barrels. Loot is a concept present in any RPG games in case you wonder. Even Mario (despite the game type) was collecting stars spoiling the view so you should got use to that already.
"Well, your honorable warrior, why did you destroy the scaffolding in the first place? It was in the first hour of the game, and your actions nearly got Varric killed and another companion seriously injured..."
First, bringing up a scripted event from the main story to justify a globally repetitive mechanic is as fragile as the scaffolding you mentioned. Confusing a planned narrative decision with a systematic mechanic that turns the entire game into a nonsensical treasure hunt shows a glaring misunderstanding of the issue. The problem here isnāt what happens in the story but the absurdity of turning Dragon Age into a ābreak-everythingā simulator where collecting resources feels more like clearing out debris.
Second, trying to divert to an isolated plot incident only highlights how difficult it is to defend the mechanic itself. A loot system based on destruction has no logical or emotional connection to the narrative. It doesnāt enhance roleplaying; instead, it breaks immersion. Why would an honorable warrior or a charismatic leader be smashing barrels and vases randomly, like some medieval warehouse raider?
Third, comparing Dragon Age to Mario is, at best, laughable. Letās make this clear: Dragon Age is a AAA Western RPG that positions itself as a mature, narrative-driven experience. Mario is a platformer designed for casual fun with simple mechanics. Making this comparison is like trying to justify "Game of Thrones" using "Tom & Jerry" logic. Dragon Age deserves more respect than being placed on the same level as games with such vastly different purposes.
Such a refreshing post! I absolutely love how clearly and logically youāve articulated both the 'whats' and the 'whys' here. Your breakdown not only dismantles the flawed arguments but also highlights exactly why this mechanic is such a misstep for the series. Truly a masterclass in reasoning! Didn't BioWare have anyone with a shred of logical reasoning on hand when making these decisions? š
"Well, your honorable warrior, why did you destroy the scaffolding in the first place? It was in the first hour of the game, and your actions nearly got Varric killed and another companion seriously injured..."
This defense is, frankly, embarrassing
First, bringing up a scripted event from the main story to justify a globally repetitive mechanic is as fragile as the scaffolding you mentioned. Confusing a planned narrative decision with a systematic mechanic that turns the entire game into a nonsensical treasure hunt shows a glaring misunderstanding of the issue. The problem here isnāt what happens in the story but the absurdity of turning Dragon Age into a ābreak-everythingā simulator where collecting resources feels more like clearing out debris.
Second, trying to divert to an isolated plot incident only highlights how difficult it is to defend the mechanic itself. A loot system based on destruction has no logical or emotional connection to the narrative. It doesnāt enhance roleplaying; instead, it breaks immersion. Why would an honorable warrior or a charismatic leader be smashing barrels and vases randomly, like some medieval warehouse raider?
Third, comparing Dragon Age to Mario is, at best, laughable. Letās make this clear: Dragon Age is a AAA Western RPG that positions itself as a mature, narrative-driven experience. Mario is a platformer designed for casual fun with simple mechanics. Making this comparison is like trying to justify "Game of Thrones" using "Tom & Jerry" logic. Dragon Age deserves more respect than being placed on the same level as games with such vastly different purposes.
I made it about halfway through the game before even realizing you could break objects. I think there are plenty enough chests and resources around the world that if you don't want to smash objects, you don't have too. Maybe it is different at different difficulty levels? I am just playing at Keeper so it might be that resources are more abundant for lower levels.
However, I do wish the health potions didn't require us to smash pots and that we could actually brew them again or just buy them from merchants. So I am in total agreement with that part of it!!!
I donāt think anyoneāmyself includedāhas an issue with being able to smash objects in the game. For me, the concerns are about:
**Consistency**: Either make all objects breakable, or none at all.
**Immersion**: If I smash objects in front of people, like in town, why doesnāt anyone react? In other games, actions like this have consequences. People ignoring or not even acknowledging that I just destroyed half their store isnāt exactly immersive. This is supposed to be an RPG, not a Diablo-style hack-and-slash game.
**Loot Placement**: The game seems to encourage breaking things for resources. However, as others in this thread have pointed out, there are plenty of other ways to place loot or resources that donāt involve randomly smashing vases in town or finding a *huge* treasure chest awkwardly positioned in the middle of the path.
To me, this is incredibly immersion-breakingādefinitely not what Iād expect from a AAA game with a 10-year development cycle. What makes it even stranger is that this isnāt a revolutionary idea. The developers couldāve easily implemented systems already used successfully in other games.
Letās be clear: weāre not talking about building a cutting-edge engine for something like *Starship*. This is pretty basic stuff in terms of programming and design. If there arenāt any original ideas to improve immersion, why not at least implement whatās worked before?
That's true that the reaction around you to breaking things could be improved! Sometimes those reactions or gasps of shock were the funniest things in other games.
About Dragon Age The Veilguard General Discussion
Enter the world of Thedas, and join us in the community forums to talk about your experiences in Dragon Age: The Veilguard