Support NeoGAF

[M3z_]

I've been watching the GeekRemix channel and their playthroughs of Bioware games(ME2, ME3, DA:I) and being that I played Witcher 3 this year it's really just put into contrast how differently certain player choice is handled in Witcher 3 v. Bioware games.

I have loved Bioware games for the choices they let you make and seeing how the world changes in regards to those choices. The Witcher 2 was the first time I played a game that I felt replicated their style at equal competency and now after seeing the Witcher 3(They may not be the first to handle choice this way, just my point of reference) I feel like they've taken a step forward that Bioware just hasn't.

The progression I am talking about is how choices are handled in regards to allies/companions. One of the more absurd things about Bioware games is how often you are making the most life altering decisions possible for other characters. In an attempt to give the player more opportunities to make game changing choices Bioware has constantly removed any sense of meaningful agency in the support characters they create. This is really unfortunate because of just how good they are at making supporting characters.

Example

Spoiler

In Dragon Age Inquisition Iron Bull is confronted with possibly the hardest decision of his life, whether to value his heritage/culture or his company/friends. This is a decision you the player make for him. He has nothing to say about the decision, he only reacts to what you choose for him. He is completely neutered of agency despite it being a character defining decision.

This pattern is repeated for pretty much every loyalty mission in that game. Your ally is put to a crossroads and instead of them making the decision you make it for them(Some exceptions).

What I found so terrific about the Witcher 3 was that when it came to other characters needing to make important decisions those characters made the decisions. That's not to say you didn't get presented with a choice. You are given an opportunity to provide your opinion on the matter, but the thing that your choice affects is how that character will view you, not what that character will ultimately do. It is treated like real life. You see a friend put to a crossroads and you may give them advice, but there is no certainty that they will heed it, or agree with it. They may even resent you for it depending on the advice. Ultimately what happens is what they decide.

I would love to see Bioware and other games take on this model. Of course there are still opportunities for choices that are directly a result of your decisions, and there is also room for occasions in which your input could be meaningful enough to change what someone would do. However I would love to be put in more positions where I do not feel certain that what I choose will definitely happen, but that I can be certain what I choose will have an affect on things. Whether that be the trust a character has in me or how people in the world react to me there are plenty of ways to create ramifications for your choices other than having your choices be the hand of god. I don't want to be the hand of god in everyone's life. I don't want to feel like everyone I hang around with relies on me to make the most personal and meaningful decisions of their life. I want them to be strong characters with their own thoughts and motivations.

 

[nocturnalis]

Thank you! Characters should not die because they aren't loyal to you or you broke up with them to get with your ex. That's dumb as fuck, Bioware.

 

[EatChildren]

My adoration for Mass Effect requires no introduction, but even I've been vocal about how (at least comparatively to other stuff out there) BioWare's writing fucking sucks when it comes to the illusion of agency with secondary characters and how these and other choices are woven into the narrative. And I mean, the Mass Effect trilogy is littered with great, memorable characters with interesting arcs, but there's no denying BioWare's narrative formula has a tendency to place the protagonist (aka, you) directly in the middle of every catalyst for development, whether it be for characters or simply the narrative itself.

There's almost no independence or sense of autonomy to your crew, because you'll always be able to convince them or wiggle around their brief moment of disagreement. The Iron Bull example in Inquisition is a good one; it's Bull's choice but he doesn't make it, you do.

And I mean, it's something to either love or hate, but BioWare games are basically power fantasies. No matter how they try to spin it, most of their modern games have stories and characters that continually pander and revolve around what you want out of them.

 

[Yeul]

Yeah I agree. I love BioWare but the way they present the illusion of choice could be better. I also think that as the sequels become more intwined with characters, the more complicated it becomes to try to consolidate every "choice" that you make. I mean honestly, many of the decisions that you make involve a choice of who is going to die (whether it be at that moment, or later). As their games go deeper into their rabbit hole I feel like the choices become more limiting because they are trying to account for potential branching threads. Dragon Age, I feel, has this problem more than Mass Effect because they keep shifting protagonists because it's "a story about the world not necessarily one person" but the same characters keep reoccurring so they have to keep in mind choices from previous games whether they like it or not based on the model that they currently use. ME has this problem too obviously, but the companions typically remain the same and you're not trying to squeeze in companion choices from the current game with a whole different set of companions from the previous game.

It want to see more of companions taking matters into their own hands once in a while if I make a choice they don't like. There's some issues I take with a few choices not carrying from TW1->TW2->TW3 (i.e. I sided with Iorveth and none of that was acknowledged, even Roche didn't mention it/he's very chummy with Geralt regardless which is fine I don't mind him being friendly because Roche is great, but I wanted to see Iorveth as well) but overall TW3 was great because you legitimately felt how Geralt would feel. He is amongst Aen Elle, sorceresses, Ciri - all of whom are very powerful and you're just a Witcher. You have mutations, sure, but life spits on you a lot and you feel it in some situations. There's a quote that Ciri says that's a good example,"What can you know about saving the world, silly? You're but a witcher." I think TW3 avoids a lot of issues DA:I had by almost presenting itself as a standalone scenario so for that I have to give props to DA:I for even attempting to reference most of the previous choices.

I just want more games where I feel like a gear in a machine vs. a special snowflake. It's a difficult thing to achieve for sure. I still love their games, regardless.

 

[The Technomancer]

My adoration for Mass Effect requires no introduction, but even I've been vocal about how (at least comparatively to other stuff out there) BioWare's writing fucking sucks when it comes to the illusion of agency with secondary characters and how these and other choices are woven into the narrative. And I mean, the Mass Effect trilogy is littered with great, memorable characters with interesting arcs, but there's no denying BioWare's narrative formula has a tendency to place the protagonist (aka, you) directly in the middle of every catalyst for development, whether it be for characters or simply the narrative itself.

Which is just an extension of the general way that modern BioWare games place you in the center of everything narratively

 

[M3z_]

My adoration for Mass Effect requires no introduction, but even I've been vocal about how (at least comparatively to other stuff out there) BioWare's writing fucking sucks when it comes to the illusion of agency with secondary characters and how these and other choices are woven into the narrative. And I mean, the Mass Effect trilogy is littered with great, memorable characters with interesting arcs, but there's no denying BioWare's narrative formula has a tendency to place the protagonist (aka, you) directly in the middle of every catalyst for development, whether it be for characters or simply the narrative itself.

There's almost no independence or sense of autonomy to your crew, because you'll always be able to convince them or wiggle around their brief moment of disagreement. The Iron Bull example in Inquisition is a good one; it's Bull's choice but he doesn't make it, you do.

And I mean, it's something to either love or hate, but BioWare games are basically power fantasies. No matter how they try to spin it, most of their modern games have stories and characters that continually pander and revolve around what you want out of them.

I don't even mind so much the fact that Bioware places you at the center of decisions in relation to plot, although ME3 certainly went super overboard in that regard. Every race in the galaxy was looking at you to solve the biggest problem in their race's existence while also fighting the oncoming reaper invasion.

For me the biggest downfall really is what they lose from the character perspective because they are so good at making characters. There are ramifications to how you treat people in real life even though you don't make their decisions for them, but these games don't explore that aspect to decision making.

 

[M3z_]

Yeah I agree. I love BioWare but the way they present the illusion of choice could be better. I also think that as the sequels become more intwined with characters, the more complicated it becomes to try to consolidate every "choice" that you make. I mean honestly, many of the decisions that you make involve a choice of who is going to die (whether it be at that moment, or later). As their games go deeper into their rabbit hole I feel like the choices become more limiting because they are trying to account for potential branching threads. Dragon Age, I feel, has this problem more than Mass Effect because they keep shifting protagonists because it's "a story about the world not necessarily one person" but the same characters keep reoccurring so they have to keep in mind choices from previous games whether they like it or not based on the model that they currently use. ME has this problem too obviously, but the companions typically remain the same and you're not trying to squeeze in companion choices from the current game with a whole different set of companions from the previous game.

It want to see more of companions taking matters into their own hands once in a while if I make a choice they don't like. There's some issues I take with a few choices not carrying from TW1->TW2->TW3 (i.e. I sided with Iorveth and none of that was acknowledged, even Roche didn't mention it/he's very chummy with Geralt regardless which is fine I don't mind him being friendly because Roche is great, but I wanted to see Iorveth as well) but overall TW3 was great because you legitimately felt how Geralt would feel. He is amongst Aen Elle, sorceresses, Ciri - all of whom are very powerful and you're just a Witcher. You have mutations, sure, but life spits on you a lot and you feel it in some situations. There's a quote that Ciri says that's a good example,"What can you know about saving the world, silly? You're but a witcher." I think TW3 avoids a lot of issues DA:I had by almost presenting itself as a standalone scenario so for that I have to give props to DA:I for even attempting to reference most of the previous choices.

I just want more games where I feel like a gear in a machine vs. a special snowflake. It's a difficult thing to achieve for sure. I still love their games, regardless.

I agree sometimes too much branching can cause all sorts of issues and that it's better to have generalities. Like multiple decisions that ultimately shape one major aspect that might get cited in future games rather than feeling a need to have the unique snowflake story that reflects back to you every decision you ever made.

They can still provide choice without giving you the reigns over someone's life. For example ME2 spoilers

Spoiler

in ME2 Jack has a loyalty mission and in it you decide whether she puts a bullet in the head of someone at the abandoned facility she was raised in. They can still give you a choice as to whether you support that taking vengeance or not. Your decision doesn't have to determine what happens. It can simply determine how your relationship evolves with Jack and whether you were able to read her correctly. Maybe you say no but she still kills him, They can make it so she later regrets her decision and talks to you about it wishing she listened, or she can feel like it was the right thing to do and feel slighted that you weren't supporting her. Either way provides a consequence to your decision without gutting the character.

 

[redcrayon]

Great point OP.

It always bothers me in RPGs when the party becomes an extension of the main character's ego, and you can end up defining not just their careers, but also their love life, links to their home etc. It makes the PC out to be almost a demi-god like figure whose reasons, logic and choices are so much better and more important than everyone else, especially when you also end up being worshipped as a saviour by every civillisation going. Few of my favourite characters in any other medium are so lucky as to be treated with the kind of reverence Bioware gives to it's recent ego-stroking rpgs.

In particular, NPC party members who become a traitor to their own people within minutes of hearing your opinion on the matter. It makes sense when that character is already wavering, often they are investigating something along the same lines of you, that's cool. But when it's like 'we met five minutes ago and you're a powerful knight at home- so join me, betray everything you love, carry my stuff and I'll also decide what trousers you wear forever!' I'm not so convinced.

I like characters that call you on your PC's hypocrisy, lack of consistency, violence or naivity, and I like having the options to do the same to them. The difference is that an NPC can't just force the PC to abandon everything that matters to you, and quite right, because we'd all just tell them to piss off.

 

[Renekton]

Witcher 3 has points where Geralt makes the decision for the individual anyways, as much as DAI having times where teammates either take orders, accept inquisitor's suggestions or choose their own path regardless.

Witcher 3 is not superior to DA:I in this regard.

 

[Yabberwocky]

Which is just an extension of the general way that modern BioWare games place you in the center of everything narratively

I know a lot of people understandably didn't care much for DAII, but I loved it because it ended up ironically averting this very thing. The actions of the characters in Act 3 are out of your control, and you can't influence much, it's just how you respond as a player characters as a player. I particularly liked that in Act 2,

Spoiler

if you don't have a good enough rapport with Isabella at the end of the act, she'll leave you for good

. (Though Hawke was originally supposed to be the Inquisitor, so the subversion was unintentional on Bioware's part.)

I was a bit disappointed that DAI went back to the Inquisitor being a bit of a special snowflake that the world and all character arcs revolve around.

 

[Sou Da]

I've been watching the GeekRemix channel and their playthroughs of Bioware games(ME2, ME3, DA:I) and being that I played Witcher 3 this year it's really just put into contrast how differently certain player choice is handled in Witcher 3 v. Bioware games.

I have loved Bioware games for the choices they let you make and seeing how the world changes in regards to those choices. The Witcher 2 was the first time I played a game that I felt replicated their style at equal competency and now after seeing the Witcher 3(They may not be the first to handle choice this way, just my point of reference) I feel like they've taken a step forward that Bioware just hasn't.

The progression I am talking about is how choices are handled in regards to allies/companions. One of the more absurd things about Bioware games is how often you are making the most life altering decisions possible for other characters. In an attempt to give the player more opportunities to make game changing choices Bioware has constantly removed any sense of meaningful agency in the support characters they create. This is really unfortunate because of just how good they are at making supporting characters.

Example

Spoiler

In Dragon Age Inquisition Iron Bull is confronted with possibly the hardest decision of his life, whether to value his heritage/culture or his company/friends. This is a decision you the player make for him. He has nothing to say about the decision, he only reacts to what you choose for him. He is completely neutered of agency despite it being a character defining decision.

This pattern is repeated for pretty much every loyalty mission in that game. Your ally is put to a crossroads and instead of them making the decision you make it for them(Some exceptions).

What I found so terrific about the Witcher 3 was that when it came to other characters needing to make important decisions those characters made the decisions. That's not to say you didn't get presented with a choice. You are given an opportunity to provide your opinion on the matter, but the thing that your choice affects is how that character will view you, not what that character will ultimately do. It is treated like real life. You see a friend put to a crossroads and you may give them advice, but there is no certainty that they will heed it, or agree with it. They may even resent you for it depending on the advice. Ultimately what happens is what they decide.

I would love to see Bioware and other games take on this model. Of course there are still opportunities for choices that are directly a result of your decisions, and there is also room for occasions in which your input could be meaningful enough to change what someone would do. However I would love to be put in more positions where I do not feel certain that what I choose will definitely happen, but that I can be certain what I choose will have an affect on things. Whether that be the trust a character has in me or how people in the world react to me there are plenty of ways to create ramifications for your choices other than having your choices be the hand of god. I don't want to be the hand of god in everyone's life. I don't want to feel like everyone I hang around with relies on me to make the most personal and meaningful decisions of their life. I want them to be strong characters with their own thoughts and motivations.

You have good points but use the worst example possible, half of the point was that Bull didn't want to make the choice for himself.

 

[Gamezone]

The problem with Mass Effect is that you have to go full paragon or full renegade in order to get full benefit of the dialog options. I like the choices in The Witcher a lot better.

 

[M3z_]

Witcher 3 has points where Geralt makes the decision for the individual anyways, as much as DAI having times where teammates either take orders, accept inquisitor's suggestions or choose their own path regardless.

Witcher 3 is not superior to DA:I in this regard.

I disagree especially in regard to Ciri. The whole game really revolves around how you treat Ciri. Ultimately your choices have an affect on her ending place, but it is through indirect decision making. How you choose to handle your relationship with her at various points makes that determination. You aren't put in a position where a supporting character is at a crossroads and the game freezes, that character looks at you, and then you decide what they do.

There may be points in the Witcher 3 where they too fall into the trap of removing agency from someone, but I don't even really need it to be a unilateral change as much as added variety. As the player character I am okay with being an influence on the people around me, and that sometimes my actions will be the tipping point in one direction or the other, I just don't want that to be the only way decisions are handled. I want there to be cases where I think someone should do something, they hear me state that and they decide to do whatever they were going to do anyways. I want the consequences to be what happens next, not what happens now.

 

[Sou Da]

Also DAI has the best implementation of what you're asking for in a Bioware game, the Divine:

Spoiler

Based upon the types of actions you took you give way for certain characters whose politics align with those actions to step up and become the Divine, all without ever directly speaking to them.

 

[M3z_]

You have good points but use the worst example possible, half of the point was that Bull didn't want to make the choice for himself.

No one wants to make that decision because it is a horrible position to be in, but it's still his decision to make because he has to live with the consequences. He doesn't even really say much in that scene. So even if you wanted to read into it as being a mercy that unencumbered him of the burden of that choice, the scene does not at all justify it.

 

[M3z_]

Also DAI has the best implementation of what you're asking for in a Bioware game, the Divine:

Spoiler

Based upon the types of actions you took you give way for certain characters whose politics align with those actions to step up and become the Divine, all without ever directly speaking to them.

Is that really how it is decided though? When I played it the person that became the Divine was the person I told should become the Divine, then I did a War Council Board mission specifically saying I was supporting that person to be the Divine and they became the Divine. From what I understand it will only choose based on your actions if you do not take the specific actions to choose someone. Maybe I am wrong on that.

 

[Sou Da]

No one wants to make that decision because it is a horrible position to be in, but it's still his decision to make because he has to live with the consequences. He doesn't even really say much in that scene. So even if you wanted to read into it as being a mercy that unencumbered him of the burden of that choice, the scene does not at all justify it.

How so? His demeanor changes afterward, he's much colder as a person and the companions all note this.

Spoiler

If you chose to let them die of course.

Spoiler

Hell if you romance him after that he tells that he's only with you because the Qunari told him it would be a good way to relieve your stress.

 

[Sou Da]

Is that really how it is decided though? When I played it the person that became the Divine was the person I told should become the Divine, then I did a War Council Board mission specifically saying I was supporting that person to be the Divine and they became the Divine. From what I understand it will only choose based on your actions if you do not take the specific actions to choose someone. Maybe I am wrong on that.

It's more or less a point/percentage based system under the hood, your word and the war table mission gives some points but more than likely whoever you wanted to become the Divine was already "winning" or pretty close to it.

 

[Renekton]

I disagree especially in regard to Ciri. The whole game really revolves around how you treat Ciri. Ultimately your choices have an affect on her ending place, but it is through indirect decision making. How you choose to handle your relationship with her at various points makes that determination. You aren't put in a position where a supporting character is at a crossroads and the game freezes, that character looks at you, and then you decide what they do.

There may be points in the Witcher 3 where they too fall into the trap of removing agency from someone, but I don't even really need it to be a unilateral change as much as added variety. As the player character I am okay with being an influence on the people around me, and that sometimes my actions will be the tipping point in one direction or the other, I just don't want that to be the only way decisions are handled. I want there to be cases where I think someone should do something, they hear me state that and they decide to do whatever they were going to do anyways. I want the consequences to be what happens next, not what happens now.

Teammates like Sera, Vivienne and Solas will at times make decisions for themselves. This is also despite the context that you are an inquisitor which people look up to versus Geralt who is an amoral mercenary.

As for delayed consequences, those are also present. For example the fate of Chantry. DAI also doesn't gleefully suckerpunch you like Witcher 3's totally random mayor's family story conclusion.

I think Witcher gets nods over DAI on many elements undeservedly. Both are on-par at best in many respects.

 

[M3z_]

How so? His demeanor changes afterward, he's much colder as a person and the companions all note this.

Spoiler

If you chose to let them die of course.

Spoiler

Hell if you romance him after that he tells that he's only with you because the Qunari told him it would be a good way to relieve your stress.

I'm not saying they don't give ramifications to the decision I'm saying the scene where that decision gets made is totally flat.

Spoiler

Basically you get to a Vint camp see that the situation is going to either cost the chargers their lives or give up on the mission and betray the Qun. Once that proposition is made clear Iron Bull literally says nothing and looks at you to decide. It's his people at stake, his name at stake, and he literally just turns and waits for you to make the decision for him.

Look, this reaction is perfect to the situation. "Why do we have to decide?"

https://youtu.be/2fwcfxB-Gig?list=PLCyE4i5wvFDjjQckY1rgBleh43dwYiAhm&t=575

 

[Sou Da]

Is that really how it is decided though? When I played it the person that became the Divine was the person I told should become the Divine, then I did a War Council Board mission specifically saying I was supporting that person to be the Divine and they became the Divine. From what I understand it will only choose based on your actions if you do not take the specific actions to choose someone. Maybe I am wrong on that.

I'm not saying they don't give ramifications to the decision I'm saying the scene where that decision gets made is totally flat.

Spoiler

Basically you get to a Vint camp see that the situation is going to either cost the chargers their lives or give up on the mission and betray the Qun. Once that proposition is made clear Iron Bull literally says nothing and looks at you to decide. It's his people at stake, his name at stake, and he literally just turns and waits for you to make the decision for him.

Look, this reaction is perfect to the situation. "Why do we have to decide?"

https://youtu.be/2fwcfxB-Gig?list=PLCyE4i5wvFDjjQckY1rgBleh43dwYiAhm&t=575

Ok I see your point about the scene but I don't get how it's inappropriate to decide,

Spoiler

The Chargers are your forces at that point.

Bull said it himself, a good leader is the one willing to make the hard decisions.

 

[WanderingWind]

Ok I see your point about the scene but I don't get how it's inappropriate to decide,

Spoiler

The Chargers are your forces at that point.

Bull said it himself, a good leader is the one willing to make the hard decisions.

That's sort of the point. BioWare games have these big convoluted ways to make you not just the most important person in a story, but the most important person in everybody's story. Despite Iron Bull leading the Chargers for years, he simply stops leading because he ran into Magic Jesus. A better written game could have the PC simply give their advice and the character of Iron Bull could make a choice that takes that advice under consideration. Perhaps nothing you say could persuade him entirely.

 

[M3z_]

Ok I see your point about the scene but I don't get how it's inappropriate to decide,

Spoiler

The Chargers are your forces at that point.

Bull said it himself, a good leader is the one willing to make the hard decisions.

I guess we just see it differently then. I don't see the chargers as your people, and I'm pretty sure the conversation at Storm's Coast with Iron Bull makes it clear you're not their leader, they are just your ally.

Spoiler

On top of that it's Iron Bull's reputation on the line and you as the inquisitor know that, I think it's really crazy to think you have the authority to decide whether or not he will be a Tal-Vashoth.

Really though that is just one decision, I feel Bioware does this exact thing over and over. Having a pivotal moment in a character's life occur and then have that character turn to you the protagonist to make the decision for them, and that's just not interesting. Especially when it's a character like Iron Bull who is so confident and strong willed, or Jack from ME2 who is totally her own person. They create strong characters then gut them when they force them to placate at tough decisions.

 

[Sou Da]

That's sort of the point. BioWare games have these big convoluted ways to make you not just the most important person in a story, but the most important person in everybody's story. Despite Iron Bull leading the Chargers for years, he simply stops leading because he ran into Magic Jesus. A better written game could have the PC simply give their advice and the character of Iron Bull could make a choice that takes that advice under consideration. Perhaps nothing you say could persuade him entirely.

Spoiler

He is told by his superiors to join the Inquistion and gather information.

He does so by giving you his mercenary group to use, they're yours by that point. I feel like this is the worst example to use.

I guess we just see it differently then. I don't see the chargers as your people, and I'm pretty sure the conversation at Storm's Coast with Iron Bull makes it clear you not their leader, they are just your ally.

Spoiler

On top of that it's Iron Bull's reputation on the line and you as the inquisitor know that, I think it's really crazy to think you have the authority to decide whether or not he will be a Tal-Vashoth.

Really thought that is just one decision, I feel Bioware does this exact thing over and over. Having a pivotal moment in a characters life occur and then have that character turn to you the protagonist to make the decision for them, and that's just no interesting. Especially when it's a character like Iron Bull who is so confident and strong willed, or Jack from ME2 who is totally her own person. They create strong characters then gut them when they force them to placate at tough decisions.

But is it not obvious that this is the choice he's been avoiding ever since he became a Ben-Hass? How is it out of character to avoid it here?

 

[MrRudiMentary]

I don't think The Walking Dead has been brought up enough in this thread. Say what you like about the lack of consequences in the game but they serve the purpose OP is looking for I think about making the player less important.

For example in episode 1

Spoiler

there are walkers attacking an adult and Kenny's kid. You choose who you help. Regardless of your decision the adult dies and the kid lives, however if you didn't try to save the kid Kenny will be rightfully pissed off with you and as a result may not side with you in later episodes. Although not as large an impact, the adult character gets a longer, sadder death scene where he bleeds to death rather than being eaten then and there and Hershel, his father, will be less mad at you and more mad at Kenny.

I think this gives the right amount of player agency. Interestingly, despite giving Lee a large amount to do and relying on him to do everything, you never feel like the leader of the group or the centre of attention as much as you do in Bioware games. You're just one of the capable adults. This feeling is lost in Season 2 because it's much harder to believe that all these capable adults are sending the 11 year old girl to do everything they should be doing, especially since much of season 1 was keeping said girl away from danger.

 

[M3z_]

I don't think The Walking Dead has been brought up enough in this thread. Say what you like about the lack of consequences in the game but they serve the purpose OP is looking for I think about making the player less important.

For example in episode 1

Spoiler

there are walkers attacking an adult and Kenny's kid. You choose who you help. Regardless of your decision the adult dies and the kid lives, however if you didn't try to save the kid Kenny will be rightfully pissed off with you and as a result may not side with you in later episodes. Although not as large an impact, the adult character gets a longer, sadder death scene where he bleeds to death rather than being eaten then and there and Hershel, his father, will be less mad at you and more mad at Kenny.

I think this gives the right amount of player agency. Interestingly, despite giving Lee a large amount to do and relying on him to do everything, you never feel like the leader of the group or the centre of attention as much as you do in Bioware games. You're just one of the capable adults. This feeling is lost in Season 2 because it's much harder to believe that all these capable adults are sending the 11 year old girl to do everything they should be doing, especially since much of season 1 was keeping said girl away from danger.

I agree that is a good example.

 

[Yeul]

Really though that is just one decision, I feel Bioware does this exact thing over and over. Having a pivotal moment in a character's life occur and then have that character turn to you the protagonist to make the decision for them, and that's just not interesting. Especially when it's a character like Iron Bull who is so confident and strong willed, or Jack from ME2 who is totally her own person. They create strong characters then gut them when they force them to placate at tough decisions.

This is my biggest issue in general. There are absolutely times where you are being "played" so to speak by your companions in BioWare games/they aren't being forthcoming/truthful to you until you reach a certain point, and they are believable in that they have such an array of personalities, but when it comes to a moment where there is a decision between who lives or dies, etc. they freeze up. All of their history and backstory that they spent talking to you about suddenly means nothing because their "life experience" is trumped by you simply being the player character. It's actually something I'm interested in seeing if they've evolved the system in ME: Andromeda. DA:I can get away with certain things because you are the Inquisitor/some see you as this divine being. If ME:A is going for a more condensed story in contrast to Shepard's, I'd love to see you just play a character who doesn't command so much respect.

I feel like an interesting thing to do instead would be to change up the way loyalty missions go. Like you/I said, having the character carry on with what they want to do anyways, regardless of how much you object/approve can lead into a much more meaningful conversation about remorse or support later on. It shifts the focus from you thinking about oh shit did I make the right choice??? to why did this character act the way they did regardless of what I said? It makes it more difficult to game the system that way because you can't just go back to a save point if you don't like the outcome.

 

[YankeeDonB]

That's sort of the point. BioWare games have these big convoluted ways to make you not just the most important person in a story, but the most important person in everybody's story. Despite Iron Bull leading the Chargers for years, he simply stops leading because he ran into Magic Jesus. A better written game could have the PC simply give their advice and the character of Iron Bull could make a choice that takes that advice under consideration. Perhaps nothing you say could persuade him entirely.

Yes, I think that's right. I like many of the characters in a Bioware games, but with very few exceptions (Morrigan to an extent, surely someone else I'm forgetting?) they don't feel like they live in the world. Rather, they seem to pop in and out of existence when the MC enters and exits the room. Even the prickliest (e.g., Jack from ME2, Sten from DA:O) are just waiting for the right dialogue choice to unlock their heart and turn them into mushy-gushy MC worshippers.

Partly this is due to the blank slate MC approach. You're all negative space in a BW game, and the degree to which the characters all venerate you seems partly an attempt to give you some meaningful definition. They need to hang on your every word and always drop everything to have life-changing banter on your whim because otherwise you might just feel like a nobody ghost in an uncaring world. But it's also part of the price of having a party-based game. In Witcher 3, nearly every character feels like they have their own agenda and place in the world. If their aims overlap with Geralt's (and he, not a blank slate, has his own believable agenda), they'll work together for a time, then naturally go their own way when that makes sense. Narratively, having a lone wolf, predefined protagonist is much easier than a blank slate persistent-team leader (but even then, most games don't get it right).

 

[Principate]

The whole plot line of Inquisition is really wasted through the your the chosen one with special powers that's given everything and can save everyone. It's called inquisition, why can't you be the scheming dick for once. The game would have been much more interesting if you actually formed the entire order from scratch and convinced all the major players to join your cause with the possibility of failure and some outright going against your order, using the pretence of the hole in the sky to gain power with the possibility of ulterior motivations apparent from the start. I'd say it's a power fantasy gone wrong because you honestly never feel like you earnt any of it.

The game just wanted to give you everything because your "awesome", it's probably the worse offender of this is Bioware games which says a lot. Oh you lose

Spoiler

Haven, here's Skyhold just because, and all these NPC's are tripping over themselves to join you just because.

If you for example started as a relative poltical nobody who acquired the anchor, and individually met and convinced your anchors, to join as the only feasible means to close the breatch and find the person responsible, various generals for force, a rich noble for your initial base of operations, actually asked Solas for more defensible bases of operations and scouted it out in case of a sudden attack, by the time your actually a major player in world stage it would have actually had meaning. The racial origin you had would determined the difficulty in convincing various parties, and those more likely to listen to your arguments.

 

[DOWN]

Witcher 3 is grossly littered with crude minutiae in the main story that hurts the pacing of campaign plotting, and while BioWare has normally avoided this, they littered Inquisition with optional fetch quests that hurt the expandibility for invested players.

Between the two, I prefer Inquisition because much of Witcher 3 is pulp fantasy and I prefer the tendency toward tasteful fantasy in the vein of the Lord of the Rings films and other less crass worlds. I just find the prominent anatomy humor in Witcher 3 so lame and in combination with a less cohesive graphical presentation, it isn't at the AAA level in many ways, despite setting some fine examples for secondary plots and general writing.

 

[Keinu]

I really like Bioware's games, but I agree the choice aspect of their games could use some work. One thing I would like to add is that they shouldn't be afraid to lock player out of some content based on their choices.

In The Witcher 2, chapter 2 & 3 plays out very differently based on your choice in chapter 1 and I loved that. Playing through a game multiple times to see such different content was a huge joy for me. On the other hand Mass Effect really didn't use this option to the same degree. Your choice in the original Mass Effect regarding

Spoiler

letting the Rachni Queen live or not

should have locked you out of a quest in Mass Effect 3, but it didn't.

 

[Renekton]

I'd say it's a power fantasy gone wrong because you honestly never feel like you earnt any of it.

The game just wanted to give you everything bvecause your "awesome"

You missed the point completely. The Inquisition is a nod to the over-embellished myths of Andraste and RL religions. Bioware allows you to express guilt and bewilderment over the personality cult you acquired from just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[M3z_]

I'm not looking to pit Witcher 3 v. Dragon Age, there have been plenty of threads to do that. I am specifically talking about a single aspect of how player choice is handled in regards to supporting characters.

 

[Sou Da]

I'm not looking to pit Witcher 3 v. Dragon Age, there have been plenty of threads to do that. I am specifically talking about a single aspect of how player choice is handled in regards to supporting characters.

WRPG threads tend to get off topic very quickly, you'll find. Good luck.

 

[SPCTRE]

BioWare gave NPCs agency before, we all know how that turned out

 

[Mivey]

BioWare gave NPCs agency before, we all know how that turned out

To be fair, he basically told you "I'm gonna blow it .. eh I mean .. I'm gonna teach them a lesson. No blowing up stuff, no sir!"

 

[Yeul]

BioWare gave NPCs agency before, we all know how that turned out

And to this day I can never stop hearing the end of how BioWare wrote said character horribly and how they should be ashamed of themselves and how if you dislike/disagree with said character you must insensitive and an asshole. DA2 Spoiler:

Spoiler

I also think it's funny how when the DA Keep was announced and there was a little recap video in it, Varric says that hundreds of people were killed in the explosion (as if that wasn't obvious). People flipped out and were like OH MY GOD BIOWARE KEEPS DEMONIZING ANDERS.

 

[danm999]

I disagree especially in regard to Ciri. The whole game really revolves around how you treat Ciri. Ultimately your choices have an affect on her ending place, but it is through indirect decision making. How you choose to handle your relationship with her at various points makes that determination. You aren't put in a position where a supporting character is at a crossroads and the game freezes, that character looks at you, and then you decide what they do.

The Witcher 3 ending does what I wish Mass Effect 3's ending had done. The ending's central conceit hinges on aggregating the choices you made over the course of the game, rather than simply giving you a choice then and there.

And because of how modular it all is has to be, all the endings are shallower than you'd want.

 

[WanderingWind]

BioWare gave NPCs agency before, we all know how that turned out

...that's actually a good point. It also fits with why they completely ditched the idea forever more. But like how they ditched everything that didn't work in ME1, instead of fixing it and making it a great idea, they just dropped it forever. That one moment did give an NPC a life outside of the PC, but it was also bad. These are two separate things, but to a developer looking to appease the most amount of people, it's a hard distinction to see.

More so when people ask for things like the Mako to return, and they're greeted with "But there wasn't anything on the planets and the Mako controlled badly." Most people who give it more than a couple seconds of thought can probably understand that those are fixable, separate things from the concept of the Mako itself, but with how perceptions can run rampant, why would a developer bother? Easier to just scrap it.

Like with giving squad mates any semblance of autonomy. Just get rid of it, because people are happy with being Awesome Guy and others will come with elaborate theories that inhabiting a world that only exists to serve you makes some sort of canonical sense.

 

[Principate]

You missed the point completely. The Inquisition is a nod to the over-embellished myths of Andraste and RL religions. Bioware allows you to express guilt and bewilderment over the personality cult you acquired from just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes but it does even that very poorly, what I was talking about and that aren't mutually exclusive. The inquisition was a fairly powerful force before you were even a player and you weren't even supposed to be the Inquisitor. There's little in the way of cult of the personality, you were a convenient pawn who eventually rose higher due to your uniqueness. If it wasn't for the fact you could close rifts literally anyone else could have done the job you did. You earned fuck all of it.

You could easily tell a much more compelling story about the cult of the personality, and much more fitting of the title inquisition if you, you know actually started the damn inquisition and started a cult of the personality around you by accident or not through your actions.

 

[Renekton]

Really though that is just one decision, I feel Bioware does this exact thing over and over. Having a pivotal moment in a character's life occur and then have that character turn to you the protagonist to make the decision for them, and that's just not interesting. Especially when it's a character like Iron Bull who is so confident and strong willed, or Jack from ME2 who is totally her own person. They create strong characters then gut them when they force them to placate at tough decisions.

Didn't Geralt directly control if Vernon should show mercy to Nilf soldier?

Also, aren't Inquisitor and Shepard in charge anyways? That's who they are and where they stand to the teammates who follow them, even for critical decisions because it affects the overall cause. If Geralt doesn't command people, that's because he's not a commander, he does not even have conviction for his current cause.

 

[Principate]

Didn't Geralt directly control if Vernon should show mercy to Nilf soldier?

Also, aren't Inquisitor and Shepard in charge anyways? That's who they are and where they stand to the teammates who follow them, even for critical decisions because it affects the overall cause. If Geralt doesn't command people, that's because he's not a commander, he does not even have conviction for his current cause.

The inquisitor actually isn't until partway through the game but due to typical Bioware writing he/she basically always was (which is lampshaded in the game).

 

[Renekton]

The Witcher 3 ending does what I wish Mass Effect 3's ending had done. The ending's central conceit hinges on aggregating the choices you made over the course of the game, rather than simply giving you a choice then and there.

And because of how modular it all is has to be, all the endings are shallower than you'd want.

It tried to do the father-losing-child which is decidedly inferior to Joel-Ellie in TLOU.

Plus the whole reveal of Ciri's role in stopping the winter puts into question what's the bloody point of the entire business of running, hiding, stopping the wild hunt.

ME3 already far outdone that regardless with the Krogan genophage arc.

 

[danm999]

It tried to do the father-losing-child which is decidedly inferior to Joel-Ellie in TLOU.

Plus the whole reveal of Ciri's role in stopping the winter puts into question what's the bloody point of the entire business of running, hiding, stopping the wild hunt.

Err, neither of those points have really got anything to do with my liking of how the game handled player choice.

ME3 already far outdone that regardless with the Krogan genophage arc.

See, this is what I mean. Whether you really cured the Genophage or not, it had no impact on the ultimate ending. You still got the Readiness points or whatever from whoever you pissed off least. All it changes was a scene or two.

Possibly the most far reaching and serious choice Shephard ever made (up to that point), and it was an irrelevant one within the context of the game. Modular. Shallow. Boring. At least dealing with the Geth and the Quarians gave you more than a binary choice.

Now, what should have happened was the kind of decision you made solving the Krogan/Salarian dispute should have factored back into the kind of ending you moved towards. Choose to trick the Krogan's into thinking they were cured, whilst you kept them under your thumb? That sounds like control. Picked the option to end the Genophage, despite the consequences possibly being disastrous long term? A point towards the destroy ending.

Whole game should have worked like this; I'll mention the Quarian/Geth decision again; if you negotiated a peace between the two factions, that really should have pushed you towards a Synthesis ending.

That's the type of choice and consequence I'd like to see.

 

[Sou Da]

And to this day I can never stop hearing the end of how BioWare wrote said character horribly and how they should be ashamed of themselves and how if you dislike/disagree with said character you must insensitive and an asshole. DA2 Spoiler:

Spoiler

I also think it's funny how when the DA Keep was announced and there was a little recap video in it, Varric says that hundreds of people were killed in the explosion (as if that wasn't obvious). People flipped out and were like OH MY GOD BIOWARE KEEPS DEMONIZING ANDERS.

It's always amazing to see them try and argue that he wasn't a terrorist. The Keep vid was especially amazing because it disproved those deluded few on the BSN who actually tried to argue that a building big only housed 10 or so people.

 

[WanderingWind]

All BioWare roads eventually lead to how bad Mass Effect 3's ending was. It's like a much nerdy version of the 5 degrees of Kevin Bacon game.

 

[Sou Da]

Err, neither of those points have really got anything to do with my liking of how the game handled player choice.



See, this is what I mean. Whether you really cured the Genophage or not, it had no impact on the ultimate ending. You still got the Readiness points or whatever from whoever you pissed off least. All it changes was a scene or two.

Possibly the most far reaching and serious choice Shephard ever made (up to that point), and it was an irrelevant one within the context of the game. Modular. Shallow. Boring. At least dealing with the Geth and the Quarians gave you more than a binary choice.

Now, what should have happened was the kind of decision you made solving the Krogan/Salarian dispute should have factored back into the kind of ending you moved towards. Choose to trick the Krogan's into thinking they were cured, whilst you kept them under your thumb? That sounds like control. Picked the option to end the Genophage, despite the consequences possibly being disastrous long term? A point towards the destroy ending.

Whole game should have worked like this; I'll mention the Quarian/Geth decision again; if you negotiated a peace between the two factions, that really should have pushed you towards a Synthesis ending.

That's the type of choice and consequence I'd like to see.

You miss the Divine election thing I posted about up above? Sounds pretty similar to what you suggest.

 

[Yeul]

It's always amazing to see them try and argue that he wasn't a terrorist. The Keep vid was especially amazing because it disproved those deluded few on the BSN who actually tried to argue that a building big only housed 10 or so people.

Yeah exactly, especially because the one of the main arguments I see being attested to that was that being a "terrorist" is a modern day term and you can't apply that to DA. Yet at the same time I always see people say that this group or that group is "coded" for something in real life so you can't criticize them because they are oppressed in the game. The hypocrisy is astounding. I actually find the DA fans to be much more vitriolic than ME fans. I only played DA2 once, but honestly I would prefer more NPC driven choices. Some characters are just not going to be good people, regardless of how you twist it.

 

[Peltz]

I agree sometimes too much branching can cause all sorts of issues and that it's better to have generalities. Like multiple decisions that ultimately shape one major aspect that might get cited in future games rather than feeling a need to have the unique snowflake story that reflects back to you every decision you ever made.

They can still provide choice without giving you the reigns over someone's life. For example ME2 spoilers

Spoiler

in ME2 Jack has a loyalty mission and in it you decide whether she puts a bullet in the head of someone at the abandoned facility she was raised in. They can still give you a choice as to whether you support that taking vengeance or not. Your decision doesn't have to determine what happens. It can simply determine how your relationship evolves with Jack and whether you were able to read her correctly. Maybe you say no but she still kills him, They can make it so she later regrets her decision and talks to you about it wishing she listened, or she can feel like it was the right thing to do and feel slighted that you weren't supporting her. Either way provides a consequence to your decision without gutting the character.

Cool idea. I like this. Everything is so focused on the actual plot rather than the tone of the narrative and not worrying so much about creating a branching plot could solve a lot of problems in Bioware games.

 

[danm999]

You miss the Divine election thing I posted about up above? Sounds pretty similar to what you suggest.

Spoiler

Yes, that is what I'm looking for more of. I liked that in my game it was Cassandra who became the Divine after I had been pushing her down the path of that all game, but I never got a choice wheel or anything. In fact I kind of pushed Leiliana into it as well which was pretty funny.

They can still provide choice without giving you the reigns over someone's life. For example ME2 spoilers

Spoiler

in ME2 Jack has a loyalty mission and in it you decide whether she puts a bullet in the head of someone at the abandoned facility she was raised in. They can still give you a choice as to whether you support that taking vengeance or not. Your decision doesn't have to determine what happens. It can simply determine how your relationship evolves with Jack and whether you were able to read her correctly. Maybe you say no but she still kills him, They can make it so she later regrets her decision and talks to you about it wishing she listened, or she can feel like it was the right thing to do and feel slighted that you weren't supporting her. Either way provides a consequence to your decision without gutting the character.

Have you played Life is Strange?