😐😐😐This 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 it’s normal for honorable characters, respected leaders, or noble warriors to destroy everything around them in search of coins and resources. 😒😒😒
Does this mean Link wasn't an honorable warrior or was he able to restore his honor by successfully playing the ocarina? 🤔
Whenever I seen pot breaking in a game (particularly when loot is involved) I take it as a nod/Easter egg for The Legend of Zelda.
I think they’re referring to how, in other games, NPCs reacting to your actions can sometimes be funny, like when someone yells, “What are you doing?!” as you destroy their vase or loot their chest. That little touch of realism adds humor and immersion. Unfortunately, in The Veilguard, there’s nothing no reactions, no consequences. It’s not immersive, and it’s certainly not funny. If anything, it feels like a missed opportunity to make the world feel more alive. I completely support the point about improving these interactions. It’s a simple fix that would go a long way in making the game feel less lifeless.
I couldn’t agree more with your points about consistency, immersion, and loot placement. You’ve articulated exactly what makes the "smash everything" mechanic so frustrating. It’s not the smashing itself...it’s how disjointed and poorly implemented it feels in the context of an RPG. This is supposed to be Dragon Age, where immersion and world-building are paramount. Finding massive treasure chests in the middle of a path or breaking vases in towns without any reaction? It completely breaks the experience.
You’re absolutely right, these aren’t revolutionary ideas. Developers have solved these problems countless times in other games. Whether it’s NPCs reacting with anger or fear when you disrupt their environment or loot being logically placed in areas that make sense, there are so many ways to handle this better. For a game with a 10-year development cycle and the Dragon Age name behind it, this kind of oversight is baffling.
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.
I don’t think anyone—myself included—has an issue with being able to smash objects in the game. For me, the concerns are about:
To me, this is incredibly immersion-breaking—definitely not what I’d expect from a AAA game with a 10-year development cycle. What makes it even stranger is that this isn’t a revolutionary idea. The developers could’ve easily implemented systems already used successfully in other games.
Let’s be clear: we’re 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 aren’t any original ideas to improve immersion, why not at least implement what’s worked before?
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!!!
Sometimes it hides chests or mementos, so you do kind of have to engage with the mechanic.
Technically, you don’t have to smash things if you don’t want to. The loot usually isn’t anything spectacular. Some heartwood here and there, maybe a pot or vase that you can sell.
I’m not trying to justify the mechanic. It’s 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.
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.
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 doesn’t 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.
Which brings us to a larger issue: the game was marketed as an RPG 🎭. Yet it feels more like a generic hack-and-slash 🗡️ lost in its own confusion 🤔. It’s almost as if the developers had no clear vision of their audience or their goals 🎯. The result is a product that’s neither an immersive RPG for those who value storytelling 📖 nor a competent action game for those seeking fluid, satisfying gameplay 🎮. Instead, it’s a hybrid that stumbles awkwardly through both 💩💩.
So, attempting to justify a disconnected and limited mechanic with such a narrow and convenient example doesn’t 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 isn’t an RPG. It’s just a poorly executed action game in denial.
And let’s 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.
