There are (at least) two aspects to 'roleplaying'.
One is what you've set out above, and which I'll call 'plot roleplaying' for want of a better term. In a PnP session, this would be the type of roleplaying where you decide how the big story unfolds, what your group chooses to do, what their long term goals are etc and the DM can adjust to this by tailoring the long-term campaign. This type of roleplaying is extremely difficult in a computer game, because by definition it requires that the game developer think ahead of time of all of the reasonable options for a given scenario and code them in. If you want to accommodate this playstyle, the logical conclusion is probably something like AoD - which goes for verisimilitude in the setting, and packs in several different strands into the same campaign, each strand representing a particular protagonist class's perspective.
The second aspect is what I'll call 'tactical roleplaying'. This is where you are given a scenario with a set objective, and your roleplay consists in optimising your actions to achieve the objective. So a classic example here is say a mission based game, where the objectives are set in stone (orders from your superiors or whatever as the plot device) and where a good game will give you several different ways to achieve that outcome, depending on your build (e.g. stealth vs. all guns blazing, hacking/technology vs. brute force etc).
When people say that DOS offers superlative roleplaying, they're talking about tactical roleplaying. You can use the environment, your skillset, enemy patterns of behavior etc to significantly alter how the game plays out. Its still not as good as a PnP session of course, but its much better than the vast majority of cRPGs and it can be a lot of fun as you start to focus on the situations presented by the game designer rather than the best mechanics to use which apply across the board (which is the usual way cRPGs play out). Another excellent example of this type of approach is Blackguards, where each set piece battle allowed you to work out specific tactics for your particular team in that situation.
Its a matter of choice as to which aspects people look for in a computer game, but I do think there tends to be an eliteness sometimes from people who want plot roleplaying and see it as the sine qua non of 'proper' RPGs. Either way, you can't deny that at the tactical level, DOS offers players an experience that has probably never been done as well or as comprehensively in the past.
And what about romance roleplaying? Because i rate this game shit/10 when i look at it from this perspective!!!11one!!!eleven!!!1 Clearly, it's the worst game ever.
Now, seriously. There's only one aspect of roleplaying. It's called roleplaying.
The game was never said to be a "tactical RPG". It was never marketed as a RPG focused mainly on combat. Yet suddenly, judging by people's posts here, it's pretty much all about combat. Why? Just because it's what the game does best? You simply can't admit that a game you've been waiting for for so long has its share of flaws? That it's not a well-rounded RPG experience after all? I wouldn't mind if Larian did something akin to Final Fantasy Tactics with their excellent combat mechanics. But they aimed to bring a "classic cRPG experience". A Fallout/BG/Arcanum type of game. Am i wrong? Is that not true? And all you can say now is "B-but muh tactics mang! Muh tactics!"?
You know what other games fall into your "tactical roleplaying" category? Crysis (the first one), Far Cry games, Stalker games (obviously), and last but not least - the Arma series. I think you should check them out, if you're not into this whole - as you called it "plot roleplaying" stuff.
Plot roleplaying, what a ridiculous name. And what a misconception. No, it's not about the plot, it's how you go about pretty much everything in a RPG (and we're discussing cRPGs here, not PnP). NPC interaction, C&C and general reactivity, combat AND non-combat skills, faction dynamics, game economy, the impact you have on the game world etc. That's roleplaying. Since, again, the game wasn't supposed to be some kind of FFT or Wizardry clone, i don't understand your fixation on tactics. You don't get to pick and choose
just because you like a certain part of the game.
Anyway, so far it boils down to something like this:
Divinity Original Sin. RPG Codex General Concensuss
™ - greatest RPG in a decade.
Pros:
- combat
- crafting
- game mechanics (vague as fuck)
- LULZ!
Cons:
- None lol
Truly, all of that combined makes a real champion of the genre.
Shit, you people are so fucking deep in Swen's ass at the moment that nobody can even admit the game has flaws. And to name a few? Blasphemy! I just had fucked up expectations, that's all...
That's not quite what i expected from the Codex. Sure, i had huge expectations. But i can't say it's the best RPG in a decade. Obsidian still makes better RPGs, even when they're building them on shitty foundations (F:NV).
But enough for today, bracing for fanboy fuled shitstorm.
