I, like a few others, also disagree with many of your points, but I do definitely respect your right to dislike something
. Same with me and Fallout 3, Fable and a number of other games; lots of others like them, and I even enjoy them somewhat, but for the most part they just aren't to my specific taste. I'd rather play Borderlands than Fallout because I think first person shooters benefit more from fast paced combat rather than forcing in too many of the RPG elements (and VATS is abhorrent to me, way to make an "easy" button on any difficulty but the hardest). Anyway, on to the actual disagreement, which I hope to present respectfully.
Being honest, the lack of fast travel sometimes bothers me, but sometimes I absolutely LOVE that it's not there. Sure, places are far apart, and take quite a bit of time to travel between, but as some others have pointed out, it really makes you feel like you're adventuring. Also, the map isn't quite as large as other games that definitely need a fast travel system (such as Elder Scrolls), so it's feasible on that account. Also, if this game did have fast travel, a number of other gameplay elements that I enjoy would be nilched. You're supposed to prepare for setting out, knowing that if you bring too much, you won't be able to efficiently loot, but if you bring too little, then you could be in for some hurt. Also, since the health bar doesn't fully heal with spells (temporary perma-damage is one of my favorite new concepts about the game), the lack of ability to do anything about that unless you have consumables or somehow make it back to town on really low health makes for an interesting and fun experience not found elsewhere. Not to mention that most people who enjoy this game love the sense of immersion, such as enemies having somewhat realistic locations and the discovery of new locations nestled in with the familiarity of traveling the old. The only issue I had with lack of fast travel was all the freaking escort quests that they have... but I'd rather they solved them by having less of them, or making the distance shorter. Really, why do four people all need to go to the Shadowfort, and I have to escort each of them from Grand Soren individually? Ugh....
One solution I wouldn't have minded is that, later in the game once you've traveled to each place and back forty times, they then give you a *limited* fast travel system. What I mean by that is, you can only fast travel at specific locations, and it costs money (like the Skyrim Cart that is rather unnecessary except for speed runs). That way, people still need to prepare when setting out, but you don't have to go from Cassardis to Gran Soren fighting infuriating harpies and wolves for the bazillionth time.
Or, maybe a flight system... they have enough mythical creatures, maybe make it so later you can use a pegasus from town or something? It would be kind of like how they make "fast travel" for older final fantasy games, the tales games, or Golden Sun (airships, for those who don't know). That would make seeing the world from up above really fun, make you still feel immersed and like your traveling, and reduce random encounters. The trade off could be a little bit of safety too; arial travel could be made a little bit more dangerous than going by ground by including arial combat with gryphons, drakes, etc. More dangerous because obviously, you could get knocked off your mount if you're not careful.
In summary, I can see why a lack of fast travel upsets you, but I think this is a matter of personal preference; there *are* some enjoyable elements about lacking fast travel, but not everyone will think that they are worth it.
I actually agree with your second point; I wouldn't mind if stamina was unlimited for running, even in combat (though if they really wanted they could limit it in combat). Fact of the matter is, I have yet to run around enough in any combat for it to influence by stamina meter to a great degree; typically, the only time I'm running out of stamina is when I'm hammering on my snakebite skill to lay on the hurt, or using cutting wind a lot to stay mobile in a tough fight. Though, maybe that's why I haven't noticed a huge deal about stamina with running in combat... because I use cutting wind for the mobility xD. Anyway, I also don't see a need to force players to stop and walk when out traveling, and wouldn't have minded that change. The only reason I can see for running influencing stamina out in the wild is that if you've run too much, your stamina is unprepared for the next fight, but eventually you learn spawn and enemy locations and are never unprepared like that anyway (except in the beginning of the game, but still). But obviously this isn't a game breaker for me, and I can respect the designers for this specific choice despite my slight inconvenience.
Oh, to address the other points brought up in your second point... I don't think the characters move too slowly at all, it's just a big world so it can seem like that at times. And, the pause when out of stamina is also something that I like, because otherwise there is absolutely no penalty for not monitoring your energy; I've never understood games that don't have a penalty like this, because in real life you definitely need to pace yourself; not just talking about a real fight, but also sports and stuff. If you go "balls to the wall", then you're going to suffer if your opponent isn't down. In fact, I even think most RPGs should allow mages to cast beyond their mana, but only once, and have some sort of penalty after it happens. Many books you read about that have magic mention consequences like this, after all, where mages can over-exert themselves and get hurt or even die.
For your third point, I partially agree. First, with my disagreements; as someone mentioned, it seems like they tried to make enemies be placed in certain environments, so running into the same enemy in the same location actually makes sense to me. And, this rewards all the traveling you've done with a knowledge of how better to prepare for the area you're going to travel through, since you know what you'll likely encounter. Second, combat is a big part of the fun of this game, being very active and engaging, so I would HATE to see enemies go away for good once you've killed them... it would be quite sad, really. Where I do agree with you though is that it's kind of annoying fighting enemies that give you paltry experience, like those wolves in the beginning of the game, and harpies. There's no real point to fighting them, and I suppose I could run by them, but that would kind of break the immersion again. And they're no longer challenging either... but they are evasive, making fighting them still somewhat time-consuming. So, what I would have liked to see is some sort of scaling mechanic. Most RPGs that scale to your level tend to get it wrong though... (mostly because it sacrifices any sense of character progression and can make enemies unrealistic) so something more integrated into questline progression might be workable. That way, the designers could keep certain areas more challenging (which is another positive about this game, that some areas *are* more dangerous than others), while making the less dangerous areas less boring to fight and traverse through. Heck, they could even switch up which areas are more dangerous based on how far you've gotten in the story; though the story isn't good, it does still have potential world-changing elements that could reduce difficulty in certain areas while raising it in others.
Point four... another where I see your point, but no easy solution. I like that the pawns talk; it makes them feel more like *companions* and less like raggedy dolls that are being dragged around just to help you fight like in other RPGs (which is kind of ironic, since the companions based on story are FAR more like the personality-less characters of other games xD). However, the repetition of phrases IS irritating, and makes them go back to feeling like the raggedy, programmed dolls that they are... suffice to say, this one would be a hard solution. A tremendous amount of work would have to be made to give them enough unique dialogue to keep them talking throughout the game while avoiding repeated phrases. Maybe a little bit less chatter could help, but Idk.
I suppose programming them to only say certain phrases once (or three times) could help. Or an option to turn of pawn dialogue; after all, and option means that a player can choose whatever makes his or her personal playthrough more fun.
Point five, I like the inventory management. I hated that Dragon Age had shared inventory... and enjoy games that divide it. It just makes sense; if you're friend is carrying something, you obviously aren't. Dragon Quest kind of mitigates it by having both a shared and divided inventory, but that's only made possible because in Dragon Quest you have a cart for the shared inventory. Also, dividing the inventory *helps* management; you can then organize items based on who actually needs or uses them; hates sifting through all the swords and axes in Dragon Age to equip a new staff for my mage... Main point being, a shared inventory is *not* necessarily more convenient or pleasing to everyone, so that solution is not a "perfect" one.
As for shortcuts... those have always been a problem for console games, and why RTS games and others of their ilk are all but impossible to make on console. Dragon's Dogma's controller is already fully mapped with relevant button-presses, and I couldn't see any of them being replace. Maybe clicking the right stick could bring up a radial...? I think that's the only thing I don't use consistently. I suppose Left Trigger's current use (sheathing and unsheathing) isn't vital either, but I find myself using it a lot... lol.
The story; you're right, it sucks. However, I've come to realize that I don't mind it if games lack a story anymore. There have been games I've played that had great stories, but I couldn't stand to finish them because I hated the gameplay. Then there's games like this and Borderlands that have "meh" for a story... and I love them. I've come to realize that, in the end, a game is about having fun, and while it's nice to have a good story, I don't find it necessary for me to enjoy a game; if you want a good story, go read a book. If you look at the legacy of games, however, earlier ones didn't even pretend to offer story, or even pretend to make sense. Mario; a plumber in the middle ages that lives in a kingdom of mushroom people that have a human princes that gets kidnapped by a dinosaur-turtle that somehow has seven children that... you get the idea. But that didn't stop players from having fun playing the game, stomping on little brown things called "goombas" and kicking turtle shells at fire-spewing plants.
Again, not to say I don't like story in video games, just that if the gameplay is fun enough, I'm more than willing to forgive a lacking story.
Anyway, that's my response to your criticisms. I don't expect you to agree, because in the end most of this stuff is personal preference. And, to give some credit to your rant, this means that you did like quite a bit of this game and wanted to like it, and so I'm sorry that certain elements ruined it for you. It was the same way with me and Dragon Age II... so I can understand where you're coming from. I wanted to like the game so bad, but certain design choices made it a game that wasn't fun to me, like the fact that 10% of the game is good story, and the rest is fetch-quests... yeah, this sounds contradictory to my previous statement, but Dragon Age *is* a game that I played for its excellent narrative and world-crafting, and few ever like meaningless side-quests that start to feel super repetitive. I guess all there is to do now is for each of us to just go and enjoy playing the games that we do like
.
