🤮The Absurdity of Breaking Objects for Resources🤮

👌😆

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.

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 “break everything compulsively” to avoid missing important resources, turning the experience into a tedious chore rather than something fun.

A brilliant suggestion would be to connect the player’s 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 isn’t a difficult idea to implement; it’s 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. 

"From a roleplaying perspective, I don’t 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."

Let’s break this down. You’re trying to justify the mechanic by saying you only “break things in deserted areas”? 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 “decide where to break” 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 wouldn’t 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.

You make an excellent point, Seasoned Scout, and I’d like to expand on what you’ve 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 doesn’t just break immersion – it outright dismantles it. It’s hard to feel engaged with a world when the game itself doesn’t 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 it’s 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, it’s not only overused; it’s completely at odds with the supposed narrative and thematic tone. Beyond the Necropolis example, it’s 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 didn’t implement better ways to reward exploration or incentivize engagement. Games like Baldur’s 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 of it. Whether it’s 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." ( ⚠️ This is nothing short of an absolute hack job ⚒️ – an embarrassingly poor effort 🤢 that reeks of amateurism and incompetence 🚫👎)

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.

"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 isn’t what happens in the story but the absurdity of turning Dragon Age into a “break-everything” 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 doesn’t 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. Let’s 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.

Finally, the cliché phrase “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” is an insult to the discussion. Sure, you can make a good omelet, but BioWare clearly used rotten eggs when implementing this mechanic. Cheap comparisons and generic metaphors won’t hide the fact that breaking barrels as a method of progression is not only lazy but also a disrespect to the level of complexity and maturity that Dragon Age fans expect.

If you genuinely believe that loot “justifies” this primitive approach, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate what you expect from a quality RPG.

"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 isn’t what happens in the story but the absurdity of turning Dragon Age into a “break-everything” 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 doesn’t 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. Let’s 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.

Finally, the cliché phrase “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” is an insult to the discussion. Sure, you can make a good omelet, but BioWare clearly used rotten eggs when implementing this mechanic. Cheap comparisons and generic metaphors won’t hide the fact that breaking barrels as a method of progression is not only lazy but also a disrespect to the level of complexity and maturity that Dragon Age fans expect.

If you genuinely believe that loot “justifies” this primitive approach, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate what you expect from a quality RPG.

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:  

1. **Consistency**: Either make all objects breakable, or none at all.  
2. **Immersion**: If I smash objects in front of people, like in town, why doesn’t anyone react? In other games, actions like this have consequences. People ignoring or not even acknowledging that I just destroyed half their store isn’t exactly immersive. This is supposed to be an RPG, not a Diablo-style hack-and-slash game.  
3. **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 don’t 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-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?