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.
Not sure when we started to rate only story arcs based on impact to ultimate ending, whereas the topic is how Bioware handled player choices and consequences. Curing the Genophage or seeing it through is a goal in itself, as you decide the fate of the entire race. There are many actors from Wrex to Mordin to Bakara, decisions that spanned 3 games like Bakara's fate (which Witcher never accomplished), outcomes and viewpoints. If you had Wreav, it is possible you will view the Krogans very differently than if you had Wrex. Plus krogan babies at the ending.
If you want to talk about final ending, not that Witcher's choices are that empowering. it is three mundane fates of Ciri. If you talk about the Nilfgardian War, those are not better-done than the Chantry story arc which has farther-reaching consequences.
Curing the Genophage or seeing it through is a goal in itself, as you decide the fate of the entire race. There are many actors from Wrex to Mordin to Bakara, decisions that spanned 3 games like Bakara's fate (which Witcher never accomplished), outcomes and viewpoints. If you had Wreav, it is possible you will view the Krogans very differently than if you had Wrex. Plus krogan babies at the ending.
If you want to talk about final ending, not that Witcher's choices are that empowering. it is three mundane fates of Ciri. If you talk about the Nilfgardian War, those are not better-done than the Chantry story arc which has farther-reaching consequences.
Still frames that I didn't get to see because I didn't play the Extended Cut edition are not what I'm talking about when I ask for immersive player choice, sorry. And while yes, I do get to decide the fate of the entire Krogan race the game just doesn't really hit you with that impact at all (again, besides still frames I didn't see I guess).
And as for the Chantry ending, while it may have further reaching consequences for Thedas, again I just don't see much of it.
Since the Witcher 3 is a very focused, personal story it's easier for me to see the fallout and impact that has on Geralt and/or Ciri. The choices I have made are more easily and more viscerally represented.
Simply put, it is better at feeding my decisions back into the ending, or main narrative.
For the record I'm pretty sure the reason there aren't more situations like the Jack one is because the average player will view that as their choice not mattering and won't really take the time appreciate the character reflecting on what you said later.
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.
Actually, the player's personal endorsement is one of the least important factors in who becomes Divine. You happened to get lucky that the person you endorsed was the person the political climate you created in Thedas would have given rise to.
No, I mentioned Krogan arc as a self-contained example because it is a great example to handle choices and consequences across 3 games. You framed it purely in context on how the krogan arc affected the ME3 final ending which sells the arc short. That is moving goalposts.
Still frames that I didn't get to see because I didn't play the Extended Cut edition are not what I'm talking about when I ask for immersive player choice, sorry..
TLOU is a focused, personal story. Witcher 3 flips between geopolitics, wild hunt, interdimensional realms, sorceress machinations and then that personal story.
Yeah. I think the key is to find a balance between having characters that feel like they're not just completely pliable automotons that have no thoughts of their own and characters that are simply forced down one plot avenue no matter what.
The problem I had with Anders in DA2 goes way deeper than what he did at the end- I think his whole characterization and the arc they put him on was just handled very poorly, especially if you played Awakening. It was just a huge leap in character from how you first see him being this moody asshole in DA2 from how he was a smarmy, generally cheerful guy in Awakening. In part because they basically had one of the biggest moments of his character development be something that happens off screen between games.
Inquisition has more issues like the OP mentions too where you'd think a character would act on their own free will but instead arbitrarily bends their will to the Inquisitor or they get shoved down some plot thread with little reactivity to the past. Take the Well of Sorrows choice-
In my game, Morrigan romanced my Warden from Origins and had Kieran as a son to look after. As you're going through the Temple, its like every couple steps you have some ominous warning to tell Morrigan that this whole Well of Sorrows thing is a raw deal. Even asking her what would happen to her kid, if she drank from it and BIoWare basically handwaves him away. It seemed ridiculous to me in that world state that BioWare wrote Morrigan that way where they force the choice between your Inquisitor drinking or Morrigan. If you were using a default world state Morrigan, I think that would be fine. But for a Morrigan that had formed some family ties and had others to think about, it would have been nice if she actually brought that up in a more meaningful way and in that world state where your Warden had romanced her in Origins, she maybe acts on her own free will and turns down the whole Well choice.
Origins actually does a decent job of what the OP wants at times. You have moments like
if you romanced Alistair, decline Morrigan's ritual and take him with you to kill the Archdemon, he'll rush ahead and kill it to spare the Warden, without you being able to stop him. Or even Morrigan leaving after she does the whole Dark Ritual thing, even if you romanced her.
I just think its a fine line between having characters that seem a bit more independent in how they act and having it feel like characters are just doing things no matter what, regardless of what the player does. I'm fine with NPCs acting on their own, so long as it still feels like it makes sense with how the player has interacted with them and the NPC's actions at least acknowledge how my player has acted towards them.
If you want to talk about final ending, not that Witcher's choices are that empowering. it is three mundane fates of Ciri. If you talk about the Nilfgardian War, those are not better-done than the Chantry story arc which has farther-reaching consequences.
This was one of my personal biggest complaints about TW3. I feel like TW games tend to unravel in act 3. The White Frost was barely covered at all and wasn't really discussed until after Through Time and Space. Unless you read the books you really have no background knowledge as to any of these things. On top of the fact that TW3 is basically a standalone game. Many things were not carried over at all whereas BioWare attempts to do so to the best of their ability. I don't think it's right for people to just excuse CDPR for not carrying over choices because "well they didn't really do it in TW1 either". I take no issues with the way the grander world was shifting in power during the time in between TW2->TW3. The issue for me arises when your personal relationships follow a standard dialogue path because they thought it would be more convenient than bringing up TW2, which I think happened just 6 mo. prior to TW3 (if I recall correctly). One of the biggest things that irked me besides the Iorveth/Roche thing was when Philippa
said she lost control of Saskia and doesn't know where she is even if you freed Saskia from the spell yourself.
Dragon Age does this too (i.e. in DA:I if you play a Dalish elf and you ask (auto-dialogue) "who's Mythal?" like???? you don't know who one of your most revered gods is?) but in general I like that they at least try to accommodate better. BioWare could definitely use more variety in C&C for sure. TW3 does well to make side quests feel purposeful which is something DA:I was too littered with to even attempt to have them make a difference to the world. I love both games, but they can obviously learn things from each other. The issue becomes if the developer would rather scrap evolution of a system rather than make it better because it takes too much work.
There are many actors from Wrex to Mordin to Bakara, decisions that spanned 3 games like Bakara's fate (which Witcher never accomplished), outcomes and viewpoints. If you had Wreav, it is possible you will view the Krogans very differently than if you had Wrex. Plus krogan babies at the ending.
.
Let's not pretend BioWare handled the carrying over of choices from one game to the next all that well. I'd rather they focused on improving c&c within one game than spend time on their watered down cross-game c&c.
If you want to talk about final ending, not that Witcher's choices are that empowering. it is three mundane fates of Ciri. If you talk about the Nilfgardian War, those are not better-done than the Chantry story arc which has farther-reaching consequences.
Why is mundane bad? Does there need to be some sort of deus ex machina to make an ending special? The Witcher 3 is still a more personal and, certainly compared to the previous games, a less political game. Ciri's fate is decided by a number of factors and you cannot control it directly, opposite to the ending of Mass Effect where everything you did never mattered anyway and you are suddenly given three choices so you can choose what ending you want. The ending of The Witcher 3 was handled very tastefully imo and managed to give the player some sort of emotional fulfillment.
First things first, BioWare needs to nail down better writing and baseline canon (as in certain thing don't need a choice) so things like ME3 don't happen again. Second, my character needs to actually say what I tell them to say, not some weird off the wall deviation of the dialogue choice.
Okay so I think from having also played Witcher 3 and various real life interactions and observations, this black and white thing BioWare likes to do stands in their way. Every situation can't have a paragon/renegade/benevolent/pragmatic/evil option. There has to be some dirty dirty gray, and it needs to be subtle. Don't tell me this is good and this is bad, it kills immersion and the thrill imo, which harkens back to my second statement as unless that happens the whole thing falls apart.
To better explain I'll use Garrus as an example. It'd be cool if him becoming the vigilante is dependent on how you handled ME1. If you don't bring him along he never gets to really know you (yeah you talk to him on the ship, but let's be real lying needs to come into play for this stuff. If I talk the paragon game to Garrus but make renegade decisions...he needs to see that) so he ends up in a basic state affected only by major choices next game with slight deviation, however if you do it molds him. On Feros you bring Garrus and he either sees
you murder colonists or do everything possible to save lives.
This affects him leading to like a softer Garrus or a hardened Garrus on a scale determining how he acts in future installments, but you won't see it really until ME2. So if you hate your ME2 Garrus well....you've gotta act differently around him in ME1. And this happens to all characters, you influence them but like others have said you lose the power trip aspect. You aren't these characters you shouldn't be making their choices.
This should also carry over to romance. I shouldn't be able to woo Liara without her ever actually seeing how I behave or going on missions. Yeah she knows the outcome but how did we get there? There should be a certain type of personality she likes and if I fit it yay romance, if I kinda fit it maybe casual sex, if I don't fit it we are just work buddies. If my personality deviates too much maybe endgame she breaks up with me and calls me fake. Make that renegade/paragon meter matter. Stop letting the Player be the most fake person that ever existed without consequence. Maybe I was a dick to Wrex in ME1 and maybe when he gave me a second chance in ME2 I was still a dick, based on this Wrex
might not even show up for the peace talks
. To me that's how I can get real choice. I don't know if it's possible but I should only be able to control how I act directly after all I'm only me and no one else.
No, I mentioned Krogan arc as a self-contained example because it is a great example to handle choices and consequences across 3 games. You framed it purely in context on how the krogan arc affected the ME3 final ending which sells the arc short. That is moving goalposts.
TLOU is a focused, personal story. Witcher 3 flips between geopolitics, wild hunt, interdimensional travel, sorceress machinations and then that personal story.
If you want to have a discussion about whether TLOU or the Witcher 3 has a better written story, that's kind of totally off topic to a thread about how Bioware handles choice.
And it would be, I might add, quite the goalpost shift.
I want to take this a step further.
Here is what I envision: In the last chapter of the game, the player has no agency over what his character says in dialogues. All of that is determined by the way you behaved in the chapters before. If you were an asshole the entire time, you can't just suddenly become a saint in the last chapter. If you never helped a character before you won't care for him at the end. This way, the developers would force the player to see what kind of character he created, rather than giving him complete control until the end. You could be the sweetest person in the world in Kotor but make two choices at the end and you are suddenly on the dark side. Take that away, I'd love to see that.
I want to take this a step further.
Here is what I envision: In the last chapter of the game, the player has no agency over what his character says in dialogues. All of that is determined by the way you behaved in the chapters before. If you were an asshole the entire time, you can't just suddenly become a saint in the last chapter. If you never helped a character before you won't care for him at the end. This way, the developers would force the player to see what kind of character he created, rather than giving him complete control until the end. You could be the sweetest person in the world in Kotor but make two choices at the end and you are suddenly on the dark side. Take that away, I'd love to see that.
First things first, BioWare needs to nail down better writing and baseline canon (as in certain thing don't need a choice) so things like ME3 don't happen again. Second, my character needs to actually say what I tell them to say, not some weird off the wall deviation of the dialogue choice.
Okay so I think from having also played Witcher 3 and various real life interactions and observations, this black and white thing BioWare likes to do stands in their way. Every situation can't have a paragon/renegade/benevolent/pragmatic/evil option. There has to be some dirty dirty gray, and it needs to be subtle. Don't tell me this is good and this is bad, it kills immersion and the thrill imo, which harkens back to my second statement as unless that happens the whole thing falls apart.
To better explain I'll use Garrus as an example. It'd be cool if him becoming the vigilante is dependent on how you handled ME1. If you don't bring him along he never gets to really know you (yeah you talk to him on the ship, but let's be real lying needs to come into play for this stuff. If I talk the paragon game to Garrus but make renegade decisions...he needs to see that) so he ends up in a basic state affected only by major choices next game with slight deviation, however if you do it molds him. On Feros you bring Garrus and he either sees
you murder colonists or do everything possible to save lives.
This affects him leading to like a softer Garrus or a hardened Garrus on a scale determining how he acts in future installments, but you won't see it really until ME2. So if you hate your ME2 Garrus well....you've gotta act differently around him in ME1. And this happens to all characters, you influence them but like others have said you lose the power trip aspect. You aren't these characters you shouldn't be making their choices.
This should also carry over to romance. I shouldn't be able to woo Liara without her ever actually seeing how I behave or going on missions. Yeah she knows the outcome but how did we get there? There should be a certain type of personality she likes and if I fit it yay romance, if I kinda fit it maybe casual sex, if I don't fit it we are just work buddies. If my personality deviates too much maybe endgame she breaks up with me and calls me fake. Make that renegade/paragon meter matter. Stop letting the Player be the most fake person that ever existed without consequence. Maybe I was a dick to Wrex in ME1 and maybe when he gave me a second chance in ME2 I was still a dick, based on this Wrex
might not even show up for the peace talks
. To me that's how I can get real choice. I don't know if it's possible but I should only be able to control how I act directly after all I'm only me and no one else.
This is exactly what I would love the BioWare C&C system evolve into. When Mass Effect: Andromeda comes out, I want to play kind of a more "cold" character because I played hardcore Paragon in the original ME trilogy. But I don't want to be yelling my head off and making constant sarcastic remarks if I pick the "renegade" option because I think it's more interesting to play a character who's not always doing the right thing, but in a subdued way. The paragon/renegade meter as it stands now makes everything come off as mood swings because there's no subtlety to your dialogue. Having that attached to my companions would be really interesting because if you're going to have me pick all of my/their choices, I want them to feel like I influenced them in some way and I want them to call me out on my shit too.
I think this problem actually concerns the fundamental game design philosophy developers choose. As Sid Meier put in one of his interviews about the civilization series, some developers go down the real-world simulation road, yet the others build their fantasy on the psychological satisfaction model of general players. (Just for the record, the Civ Series started out as the first type but eventually evolved into the second.) Granting support characters agency inside the game follows the real-world logic, but more or less undermines the joy players might get from the game.
One of the greatest type of ecstasy you could achieve from a game is getting the perfect ending. In Mass Effect 3, for example, it means acquiring the highest level of "galactic war assets",
destroying all the artificial intelligence in the galaxy, saving most of your crews (R.I.P. Geth & EDI) and eventually keeping Shepard alive.
Actually, the whole game is built around this simple logic: do whatever you could and make the best choice so no one (well, not necessarily everyone) has to die. Presuming the Bioware goes down the real-world path and setting the protagonist into a role of merely lobbyist instead of dominator, the original mechanic would fall apart. It may not be a bad thing, but as Sid Meier said, gaming is a lot different than real world; even in the strictest simulator, users would still want to find the best option (which often do not exist in the real world). Failing to comply with the request diminishes the joy gamers feel, and eventually damages the experience. That's exactly why the new Civilization game let go many of the original limitations.
I would like to add that I am not defending Bioware's decision. They could have done better, and many choices in Mass Effect trilogy, especially the last entry, have series logic flaws.
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,
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.
Yeah. But this was one of the things DAII actually did better than the first game. The problem with the DA series is that Bioware completely rewrites the book in each game, instead of keeping the things that work and ditching the things that don't.
Because the main topic is about choices and consequences, Krogan storyline as a standalone arc with C&C can stand up to the Witcher 3 Ciri endings choices.
If you want to have a discussion about whether TLOU or the Witcher 3 has a better written story, that's kind of totally off topic to a thread about how Bioware handles choice.
And it would be, I might add, quite the goalpost shift.
With regards to consequences, you say it is okay for Witcher 3 to have these Ciri endings because it is more "focused and personal". I contend it is not personal and focused because Ciri's story affects the world including geopolitics, some apocalyptic winter, galactic army, interdimensional realms. Where the latter aspects did not get adequately explained, and then people go "hey it's just about Geralt and Ciri".
Why is mundane bad? Does there need to be some sort of deus ex machina to make an ending special? The Witcher 3 is still a more personal and, certainly compared to the previous games, a less political game. Ciri's fate is decided by a number of factors and you cannot control it directly, opposite to the ending of Mass Effect where everything you did never mattered anyway and you are suddenly given three choices so you can choose what ending you want. The ending of The Witcher 3 was handled very tastefully imo and managed to give the player some sort of emotional fulfillment.
The story went across continents, and then to interdimensional realms, involving giant galactic army and some cosmic apocalypse which were not properly explained or resolved. But hey it's okay because it's a "personal story".
What was the fulfillment of the ending, I ended up asking "what's the point" because everyone had the same goal of eliminating the winter, then what's with all the hiding and seeking and fighting and subterfuge at the very end?
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.
ME3's endings were shallow despite not being modular. You'd think that by throwing away the complexity of aggregating player choices throughout the ME, they could have added some more depth there.
The final playable section after Ciri does her thing in skellige changes depending on the choices you make. It is related to the outcome of the main plot.
Because the main topic is about choices and consequences, Krogan storyline as a standalone arc with C&C can stand up to the Witcher 3 Ciri endings choices.
If the topic is choice and consequence, then talking about how the Krogan stuff largely disappears is pertinent to the topic, and not a goalpost shift, innit?
Your playable epilogue is different depending on the choices you've made regarding Ciri. If you haven't seen them I won't spoil them.
With regards to consequences, you say it is okay for Witcher 3 to have these Ciri endings because it is more "focused and personal". I contend it is not personal and focused because Ciri's story affects the world including geopolitics, some apocalyptic winter, galactic army, interdimensional realms. Where the latter aspects did not get adequately explained, and then people go "hey it's just about Geralt and Ciri".
The story went across continents, and then to interdimensional realms, involving giant galactic army and some cosmic apocalypse which were not properly explained or resolved. But hey it's okay because it's a "personal story".
You're quibbling over how you felt about plot cohesion which isn't the topic (this is an actual goalpost shift BTW), topic is about how Bioware games utilise player choice and can learn from the Witcher.
None of that has anything to do with the Last of Us. I still don't understand why you want to bring that up in a topic about Bioware choices. I still have no idea why you insist on that comparison since its off topic.
Back on topic; the Witcher 3's endings worked, and Mass Effect's didn't, because they wove the big choices you'd made all game back into the ending.
That the Witcher was actually about two characters relationship and the rest was really backdrop is kind of irrelevant and off topic.
The ending fit the choices you made with Ciri. The game paid attention to you. Mass Effect on the other hand simply nodded and smiled as you made all your choices, and then asked you at the end what you thought the ending should be, and it was irrelevant what you had done before. You could have been a ruthless prick the entire game who refused to cure the genophage, wiped out the Geth, treated everyone like shit and picked a nice Synthesis ending, for instance. It made no sense.
Finally;
But I'll indulge you here your comparison even though the Last of Us is ostensibly about the end of the world, and fascist governments, and the Fireflies, and hopelessness, and a possible cure and redemption for humanity, it's really about Joel and Ellie and the rest is all just catalyst to explore that relationship.
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.
I always found it funny how quickly certain characters in the church were quick to see you as the only option to fix thing. It literally happens after one battle and a questionable "echo" of the Fade that is taken as fact.
This complete stranger who was just the top suspect of murdering the female pope literally hours before is now in charge. No monitoring. No further trial period. Nada.
I remember half suspecting you were installed as the Inquisitor (and a patsy) as part of a larger game of Church politics but... nope, they just saw you as the best person for the job.
It's like the game was saying, "We have all these neat mechanics/gameplay options of running your own Inquisition. Screw plausible set up, let's get right to it!"
With this all said, I platinumed the damn game and 100% both DLCs (yes even the new one) already.
I agree OP. I love bioware games but the choices don't feel to hold any weight or don't make sense at all when your making important decisions for your companions.
Using the example you used about Iron Bull, instead of you making the decision maybe Iron Bull should have made the decision based on some hidden value like how much he approves of you or is loyal to you. If he approved highly of you (>=85) he decides to sacrifice his companions for the sake of his race and the war but if the loyalty is <84 he saves his companions and let's the dreadnought die.
If the topic is choice and consequence, then talking about how the Krogan stuff largely disappears is pertinent to the topic, and not a goalpost shift, innit?.
Even with that, the Krogan genophage arc within itself is well-done on C&C department, and I feel outstrips Witcher 3 ending. Unlike Witcher 3, the arc closes the loose ends and the topics it brought about. It spans 3 games, and provided different viewpoints depending on which brother was alive. It's quite well-done no?
You're quibbling over how you felt about plot cohesion which isn't the topic (this is an actual goalpost shift BTW), topic is about how Bioware games utilise player choice and can learn from the Witcher.
None of that has anything to do with the Last of Us. I still don't understand why you want to bring that up in a topic about Bioware choices. I still have no idea why you insist on that comparison since its off topic.
A:Witcher 3 ending good C&C!
B: But consequences do not adequately cover the big topics other than Ciri
A: Because it is a personal and focused story!
B: It is not, TLOU is a comparative example of personal and focused story
That the Witcher was actually about two characters relationship and the rest was really backdrop is kind of irrelevant and off topic.
But I'll indulge you here your comparison even though the Last of Us is ostensibly about the end of the world, and fascist governments, and the Fireflies, and hopelessness, and a possible cure and redemption for humanity, it's really about Joel and Ellie and the rest is all just catalyst to explore that relationship.
The Wild Hunt is not a backdrop, the cosmic winter thing is not a backdrop, the interdimensional realms may or may not be. They are here, real, and going to tear up the world. They are very very closely tied to Ciri. They deserved to be scoped in for the ending consequences. That Witcher 3 brought all these threads and then chickening out could be a consideration for sizing up C&C merits.
For TLOU, the hopelessness and nature and redemption are the themes and backdrops. They don't need to be resolved.
What a great OP. Agree with pretty much every point. In real life, I hang with friends who make their own decisions and as they might come to me for advice (and vice versa) they end up making their own call on a life situations. Sometimes, it means they move away forever, sometimes we drift apart and sometimes we become closer, like family.
I would love to have a game where I make my own decisions but main characters will make theirs and sometimes the outcome might not be what I want. Can you imagine if Garret decided halfway though ME that he had had enough of all the fighting and due to your choices to keep pushing forward, just left? Never to be seen again except maybe for a letter written to you? People would have freaked out. Losing a great friend and not being able to play as him or interact with him ever again. Well, that's real life. Sometimes friends don't want to walk the same path as you and you lose them or worse, they become adversaries.
Funny that the OP ises companions having no agency as such a negative, when Bioware themselves created Baldur's Gate, which is packed to the gills with companions with minds of their own. Some will leave your partg jf hour reputation is too positive or negative. Some absolutely hate other characters. Some simply get annoyed if you don't do the mission they joined up with you for help with and after enough time passes they say fuck it and go off on their own.
Bioware and Bethesda's formulas have both basically become power fantasies rather than RPGs, where the player has control over every decision rather than providing interesting reactions to what the player does. The thing is, The Witcher 3 seems pretty popular, so not sure if removing so much reactivity fr their game concepts is what makes them sell like they do.
Funny that the OP uses companions having no agency as such a negative, when Bioware themselves created Baldur's Gate, which is packed to the gills with companions with minds of their own. Some will leave your party if hour reputation is too positive or negative. Some absolutely hate other characters. Some simply get annoyed if you don't do the mission they joined up with you for help with and after enough time passes they say fuck it and go off on their own.
Bioware and Bethesda's formulas have both basically become power fantasies rather than RPGs, where the player has control over every decision rather than providing interesting reactions to what the player does.
Im sure if you asked them theyd say removing the consequences in choice and consquences is part of why their gsmes do so well. But of course TW3's popularity points to that maybe not being true.
I have not played Balder's Gate, but as you say the current direction Bioware has taken their games is not in line with giving supporting characters that kind of agency. If they use to give it to characters in the past that is even more depressing because then I am forced to realize they consciously have changed their design goals.
My interests might be a bit different than what the majority of fans of games involving choice are in that I am totally okay with not feeling like I can control what happens. I actively want to feel not in control. I want to feel like I am making decisions and those decisions are affecting things, but I don't want to necessarily be able to predict the ramifications of each choice I make.
In life you only have so much control of what happens around you and I want that reflected in games. I want their to be more emphasis on your intentions and less on your will. I especially want supporting characters to feel like the strong independent characters they are made out to be from their backgrounds, and not suddenly lose all personal resolve because I happen to be next to them when a tough decision occurs in their life. Relationships and how relationships affect what happens around you is something that could be done much better. I don't want my relationships to feel like I'm the only mind.
There are plenty more ways in which I think games that involve choice could improve, some have been mentioned in the thread, but currently the issue that I personally find the most annoying is the lack of agency characters around you have because of the developer's desire to put the player in complete control of the world state. It's funny too because one of the issues that comes up with games involving choice is how hard it is to create a story when there are so many possible divergent paths. Well if you narrowed some of those paths by giving support character agency and instead had your choices only affect relationships it would be a lot easier to write the story.
I'm not really sure this is true for Inquisition. It's a situation where it's easier to identify cases where it happens than cases where it doesn't. There are characters who don't change or bend their will based on what you decide, those who somewhat do but it's narratively justified, and those who somewhat do and it's kind of clumsy.
For those who don't change, you can see Sera, Vivienne, Cassandra, Varric, Solas, Josephine. For those that do and it makes sense you can see Cullen (it absolutely should be your call whether he takes lyrium or not) and Iron Bull (the key point here is that you aren't telling him to do something he doesn't want to do. He's very conflicted and is torn between loyalty to the Qun and to the Chargers. Since he's under your employ it makes sense he'd defer to you, especially because the consequences of the decisions actually affect the Inquisition greatly). For those you can influence and it's kind of lame you see Dorian (if the Inquisitor tells Dorian he should talk to his father, Dorian should just tell him/her to fuck off. Seriously, how is that your business at all?) and Leliana (95% of Leliana's interactions are actually great, especially how they influence what type of Divine she is. But the first choice has you telling her to spare a known traitor when it's not your place to do so, and failing to tell her to spare the traitor will default her to ruthless for the rest of the game.)
The Witcher can get away with some things Dragon Age can't just by virtue of Geralt being who he is. He's not a leader and he doesn't need a party for gameplay, so it's easier for other characters to do as they please. But I don't think it's entirely realistic for people to never listen to the PC, either. If a character is conflicted (and there should be conflicted characters if you are building an interesting cast) then a choice-driven RPG should have no problems giving you the opportunity to give input, and sometimes that character should decide in favor of what you recommended. If characters acting independently simply means they always make the same choice regardless of what you say or do, then that's inherently less interesting in a choice-driven RPG than one where you can influence them, depending on the character and situation.
To summarize, it's the contrast of "dependent" vs. independent characters that makes one or another special in an RPG, not simply one or another being better.
I'm still a little weirded out in Dragon Age 2 how, due to how important and persuasive the main character is, every romanceable party member in the game is thus bisexual with no clearly defined sexual preferences one way or the other.
I will actually admit one thing I LIKED about Mass Effect 2's Samara is, no matter what, you and flirt with her and hit on her but, when it comes time for a possible romantic connection, she rejects you and, no, you are not so important and persuasive that you can convince her otherwise... ... ... until Mass Effect 3's Citadel, that is.
I think the bigger problem with player choice, at least in Mass Effect, which grew more and more apparent, is all those lauded "player choices" ultimately didn't matter. Did you kill or spare the Rachni Queen? Another one shows up later anyway. Did a major character die? You'll get someone new to replace them on their missions temporarily regardless to fill the empty spot. Did you romance a character in one game and then another in another game? Maybe you'll get one line and then that's it. Did you put Anderson or Udina in charge? Doesn't matter, Udina's in charge by the third game regardless. Did you save or sacrifice the council? A new one pops up anyway.
Bioware was SO SCARED that players would miss out on content that they ensured everybody, even people who only started with ME3, would be able to experience every single possible mission they could, and it honestly gets ridiculous how, no matter how much things "change", they still play out almost exactly the same with only lip-service to tell you anything was different. The Witcher 2, I recall, has an entire continent you will NEVER SEE on one playthrough because of a choice you make. I'm so impressed by that.
And, of course, Bioware's narrative failings culminated in a utter LACK of control in the main plot by the time DA2 and ME3 came out where, no matter what, you are either powerless to do anything about the story arc, or all your decisions are negated and you just pick your ending... even if you played the entire trilogy as a ruthless Renegade or just played the last game as a full Paragon, you get the same options regardless.
I haven't played DA:I yet, so I don't know if they improved on it, but I do sincerely hope we can get a game that has player choices actually matter again and Bioware can find the balance between player importance and story importance. One should not be a slave to the other, but both should be working in harmony in a give-and-take relationship.
I felt that in ME1. I even felt that in ME2's Suicide Mission. I felt like the decisions I was making were important ones... but the payoff just wasn't there. Brilliant set-up, but didn't stick the landing.
... Still would buy a Mass Effect remastered trilogy in a heartbeat.
Still holding out hope that ME: A is Mass Effect: Firefly. The Western music and emphasis that the N7 soldier from the trailer isn't the PC gives me hope.
BW storytelling has really gone down the drain over the last few years. IMO they should not even include the dialogue options in their games anymore as they have little to no effect on the outcome. CDprojekt set a high standard for WRPGs which i am certain BW will never be able to follow. They should stop calling their games "choice driven." And just call them for what they are. For example ME should just be called a TPS with sight RPG element. etc.
BW storytelling has really gone down the drain over the last few years. IMO they should not even include the dialogue options in their games anymore as they have little to no effect on the outcome. CDprojekt set a high standard for WRPGs which i am certain BW will never be able to follow. They should stop calling their games "choice driven." And just call them for what they are. For example ME should just be called a TPS with sight RPG element. etc.
It also happens in the ME3 endings, though only at low EMS levels. If you kept the Collector Base, Control is your only option at low EMS. If you destroyed it, Destroy is the only option. It's a tendency for BioWare games to have interesting design decisions that most players will never see. I still think most DA2 players probably tried to get maxed friendship paths with everyone, even though quite a few Rivalry arcs are far more interesting. Similarly, Inquisition has special scenes for companions with really low approval, like a miserable drunk Cassandra hating herself for elevating you to Inquisitor, and punching Solas.
It's an amalgamation of a bunch of choices, the most important of which will be what you do in the big decisions such as mages vs. templars and within that allies vs. conscripted, and who you choose as Orlesian leader.
Can't agree that Divine is trivial. The difference between mages governing themselves in academies and still being controlled by templars with slightly lighter restrictions is still a big change for southern Thedas. Additionally, Leliana allows all races into the Chantry which is a radical reformation on Chantry law.
Depending on your choices the outcome of the game is vastly different. Lot of choices add extra story elements to the main mission and endings. I don't wanna put any spoilers here. If you want to find those out go to the spoiler thread and discuss there.
Interesting points. The thing that bothers me the most is that BioWare almost always gives the player too much control over monumental events they can never deliver on.
I'm not so much against allowing the player character to have widespread influence over everyone around him, but I do have a problem with providing the player with these monumental choices with varied and far reaching consequences that ultimately can never fully be realized within a multi-game series.
ME is one of my favorite series ever, but they totally screwed up the series from the start with the massive choices they let you decide upon. So many things were left to you with far reaching consequences and they pretty much never were able to deliver on them, but instead had to sweep things under the rug or hand wave them away in later games.
They really need to plan out their stories better form the start and have more than a basic framework of where the series will go. Because they can't keep going down this path of letting players make these world changing decisions and then never being able to really deliver on them later down the line.
You can't keep putting me into a position where by choosing X over Y to be the leader he will improve the lives of some downtrodden group to then come back in the sequel and then tell me "Well X is trying really hard, but you know there's red tape and he's been really busy, so nothings really changed a whole lot, but we'll get there some day. Maybe."
Sure it might feel cool in the moment to make these huge choice, but I've been there a dozen times already. So unless you're able to realistically reflect the consequences and impact of that choice later in the game or series, don't give me that option.
It also happens in the ME3 endings, though only at low EMS levels. If you kept the Collector Base, Control is your only option at low EMS. If you destroyed it, Destroy is the only option. It's a tendency for BioWare games to have interesting design decisions that most players will never see. I still think most DA2 players probably tried to get maxed friendship paths with everyone, even though quite a few Rivalry arcs are far more interesting. Similarly, Inquisition has special scenes for companions with really low approval, like a miserable drunk Cassandra hating herself for elevating you to Inquisitor, and punching Solas.
It's an amalgamation of a bunch of choices, the most important of which will be what you do in the big decisions such as mages vs. templars and within that allies vs. conscripted, and who you choose as Orlesian leader.
Can't agree that Divine is trivial. The difference between mages governing themselves in academies and still being controlled by templars with slightly lighter restrictions is still a big change for southern Thedas. Additionally, Leliana allows all races into the Chantry which is a radical reformation on Chantry law.
Yeah, I'm really getting sick of them putting the player in the middle of everything. The Iron Bull example shows perfectly how ridiculous it has become.
Even with that, the Krogan genophage arc within itself is well-done on C&C department, and I feel outstrips Witcher 3 ending. Unlike Witcher 3, the arc closes the loose ends and the topics it brought about. It spans 3 games, and provided different viewpoints depending on which brother was alive. It's quite well-done no?
How? It doesn't factor back in. And whichever way you go you still get the readiness points (either from the Salarians or Krogans) and that's it. The game literally turns that huge decision into numbers and you just move on.
And don't talk like that choices and consequence arc spans three games. It doesn't matter what you did in previous games wrt the Genophage. You're still given the choice to cure it or not even if you've expressed 100% not interested in doing that in ME 1 and 2.
If Mass Effect 3 had what I was talking about, you would be locked into a certain course of action depending on how you had interacted with Wrex at Virmire in ME 1 and with Mordin in ME 2.
A:Witcher 3 ending good C&C! B: But consequences do not adequately cover the big topics other than Ciri
A: Because it is a personal and focused story!
B: It is not, TLOU is a comparative example of personal and focused story
Ciri is the big topic! That's what that game is actually about. Geralt doesn't care about the politics, the war, the end of the world, he only cares about helping Ciri and guiding her.
Geralt is not Shephard or the Inquisitor, he is not the saviour or the Chosen One.
The game understands this and structures all its major choices and scenes around this relationship.
The Wild Hunt is not a backdrop, the cosmic winter thing is not a backdrop, the interdimensional realms may or may not be. They are here, real, and going to tear up the world. They are very very closely tied to Ciri. They deserved to be scoped in for the ending consequences. That Witcher 3 brought all these threads and then chickening out could be a consideration for sizing up C&C merits.
Is the state of the world resolved at all in TLOU? No. Do we know if there's a cure? No. Was it Ellie? We don't know.
None of that matters, because the game simply uses all that as a backdrop to focus on Joel and Ellie.
It's like how we don't really care what happens to Scotland at the end of Macbeth. The story wasn't about that, those were just incidents to bring out the character drama.
