Uh no, unless you count just telling them in a throwaway dialogue that. Seen that dialogue option but it does jack squat in terms of actual impact on the story.
It's not just a single dialog option though, it constantly comes up time and time again and you realize by the end that you weren't chosen at all and it was just dumb luck. Yeah it would be cool if there was more branching story but to renounce the entire title of the Inquisitor would render the game that exists as is as nonexistent.
It would be the equivalent of giving up Shadowrunning in Shadowrun, you can't just do that and still be able to progress in the game HBS made.
I see what you mean since W3 basically plays out exactly the same no matter what you did in the prior games. However, I was referring more to each game as a self-contained entity, I only mentioned never truly buying the Mass Effect transfers as it was something they explicitly advertised as though it would make a big impact. Although in fairness, there probably are better examples than The Witcher for what I was talking about.
Honestly the multi-game character arcs are probably the only great thing story telling wise about the Mass Effect series I mean most of it is inconsequetial to the endgme lke ME3 ending ensures, but there's plenty of things you can or don't see depending on the events in previous games e.g the genophage is a 3 game story, you can only achieve
peace between the Quarian and geth because of actions in ME2
Plenty of characters act differently to you depending on actions in previous games, and characters can die in ME2 that have little story arcs in ME3. There's a lot of areas where you can visibly see the effects of your choices in previous games in later games. They all just aren't important like not one bit to main plotine of the games. Which aside from how bad in generally the ending was really pissed people off.
There is a grade between loser who no one cares about and Chosen One. Games like Planescape, Age of Decadence and Shadowrun all seem to do just fine with this.
Well...in Age of Decadence you technically can become the most important person in the universe...unfortunately for you, the player, lol.
"Everyone, get him." Crowds of enemies surround the main character and mash his brains into tiny chunks.
Also, isn't The Banner Saga pretty good for this too? Not played it yet, but it doesn't seem from an outsider to be a game where the narrative evolves entirely around the main character. BioWare games tend to be rather cheesy RPG games to be honest, fun as they can be (ME1 and ME2 were both really fun games in my view).
It's not just a single dialog option though, it constantly comes up time and time again and you realize by the end that you weren't chosen at all and it was just dumb luck. Yeah it would be cool if there was more branching story but to renounce the entire title of the Inquisitor would render the game that exists as is as nonexistent.
And that reveal was also badly executed and poorly contextualized. The player character just
walks in the door while this evli bad guy is doing a major ritual important to his whole major evil plan? It came across as a "Hey what's going on here?" sitcom introduction
it's totally random and unmotivated.
In Bioware games players just become Space / Medieval Jesus for weird reasons. At least in KOTOR it made sense in the whole plot and it fit the whole Star Wars brand.
And that reveal was also badly executed and poorly contextualized. The player character just
walks in the door while this evli bad guy is doing a major ritual important to his whole major evil plan? Like a whole "Hey what's going on here?" sitcom introduction
Yeah exactly, people are complaining in the thread that you don't have just a regular guy, yet in DA:I you do have a random situation with a regular guy. What's the issue here?
And that reveal was also badly executed and poorly contextualized. The player character just
walks in the door while this evli bad guy is doing a major ritual important to his whole major evil plan? Like a whole "Hey what's going on here?" sitcom introduction
I genuinely laughed at that. I keep feeling they had a pre-Big Bang playable sequence that would have explained more, but axed it and came up with this sequence.
Yeah exactly, people are complaining in the thread that you don't have just a regular guy, yet in DA:I you do have a random situation with a regular guy. What's the issue here?
The issue is that they make you the de facto Jesus nearly instantly, and while there's some discussion of what it all means, there's no real consequence to your leadership. It's not that you, say, gradually gain the respect of the people, but more that it's dropped in your lap and never seriously challenged. The sequence with the Church? Their opposition lasts all of a minute.
Yeah exactly, people are complaining in the thread that you don't have just a regular guy, yet in DA:I you do have a random situation with a regular guy. What's the issue here?
It was laughably bad with little to no contextualization or motivation. We are just supposed to believe that the whole reason for becoming the chosen one that everybody worships is because you
accidentally walked into a room where the evil bad guy is doing his major evil thing.
It's just convenient for the writers, because apparently they couldn't come up with a better reason other than
"dude walks in room and becomes the Chosen One".
I don't know what went down in the writers room and maybe the development staff couldn't execute it better, but it's just lazy execution that makes the whole reason for the entire game unbelievable.
Yeah exactly, people are complaining in the thread that you don't have just a regular guy, yet in DA:I you do have a random situation with a regular guy. What's the issue here?
Honestly didn't mind that you were literally a king in DA:I with a throne, castle, force and everything. My issue was always none of it felt earned not one single bit, they just kept on throwing stuff at you because you were unique or the chosen one whatever. If you had actually founded the inquisition, personally recruited your commanders, obtained your starting forces and your intial base of operations, and sorted out any political issues. When they started fanning your ass it would have actually meant something, and you don't need to be the chosen one or special to do any of that.
The only reason you find it insulting is because you make the fallacious assumption that you are the media you consume. When a game gets criticized, you think it also criticizes you. You have been groomed to identify with the product you consume instead of being able to distinguish between your person and the media you consume. It is entirely possible to possess criticial skills while enjoying something superficial and childish.
People often just don't see the same positive or negative traits in things that others do, or even see them as such.
Cliche critical summations such as "turn your brain off" and similar approaches to analysis, are entirely rooted in pandering to/from people who're incapable of following simple story threads without needing basic inferences entirely spelled out for them at length... who have to actively struggle to suspend their disbelief because their childlike vulnerability to deception has caused them to construct a massive wall around their psyche... and who can't enjoy things that they were taught to distance themselves from as they grew older in order to maintain the perception and accepted conventions of being productive or meritorious.
No? Ok. None of that "you're conditioned by marketing to conflate your self identity with various material possessions, but I'm not" stuff is going to fly here either.
Well, having peeked into the spoilers a bit, I find the explanation kinda interesting to think about when compared to the original Dragon Age.
What I can generally grasp of it, the Herald is the Chosen One largely by
accident, walking in on the villain's ritual and being unintentionally linked to the whole shebang - all rather Harry Potter like.
They are a nobody thrust into power because they are subsequently, quite literally, the only person in existence who could possibly do anything about the plot. I apologise if I'm wrong, and individual backstories do play in.
In Dragon Age, you had a variety of differing origins, all of which had some solidified degree of an identity. You could be the the son/daughter of a rough equivalent of a Duke, all the way down to an elf living in the slums and at the mercy of any human you saw. And the way the story is set up means that you could technically die and the world would be saved by someone else - whether your partner or a grey warden from a differing country - but it'd be nice if you could keep the apocalypse from being able to get the ball rolling. One of the Chosen Few instead of the Chosen One.
Mind you, that still has a lot of the world saving connotations in terms of plot and characters, and that other grey wardens still exist may be lost on those who don't dig through dialogue or the codex. Not to mention you can still do much of what you want... But still, its an interesting shift, if the games have gone from a variety of loosely defined origins, to a single malleable identity, to being able to make up what you want, going through the games in order.
No? Ok. None of that "you're conditioned by marketing to conflate your self identity with various material possessions, but I'm not" shit is going to fly here either.
Huh? Relax. These are two different conversations. I was talking about how people are prone to think that criticism of their favorite game means criticism of their person. I explained that by referring to how people have been groomed to identify with what they consume, i.e. tie their identity to the products they consume. That has nothing to do with the claim to agreed-upon standards of how we can have a discourse on why something might be argued to be 'dumb' or whatever.
I think BioWare's ego-stroking narratives are like their romance sub-plots: it doesn't appeal to me, personally, but a large portion of their fanbase expects it to be there, and I don't blame BioWare for wanting to stick with their own particular formula. Not everything needs to be yet another goddamn "deconstruction" of the epic, heroic narrative.
What I object to in BioWare's approach is how unearned the ego-stroking feels, both for the player and the character. In a game like Morrowind, for instance, you're told at the beginning that your character has been "chosen," yet he starts off as a Level 1 schlub who struggles to defeat even weak opponents and is treated with contempt or indifference by the natives of Vvardenfell, many of whom want nothing more than for him to go back whence he came. Your character has to earn that respect, such as working his way up through the ranks of one of the Great Houses, or by becoming so powerful that he can go toe-to-toe with gods and come out on top.
(Compare this with Skyrim, where the player character is slaying bloody dragons early in the game, and is identified as the Dragonborn right after that.)
In a game like Mass Effect 2, the player is constantly told that Shepard is the galaxy's only hope, that he's the only one who can defeat the Reapers, and so on, but the game failed to establish why this is the case. Shepard did not strike me as being particularly charismatic or inspiring, rather, it seemed like the only reason everyone considered him so important was because he was better at making things go from "living" to "dead" than everyone else. As a player, I felt like I had done nothing to earn the level of adulation heaped upon my character.
Dragon Age 2 was even worse in this regard. The writers wanted to have it both ways - they wanted a more limited, personal narrative, but at the same time they wanted Hawke to be this awesome badass who becomes the Champion of Kirkwall. The result was a character who's supposed to be the embodiment of the "rags to riches" narrative, and yet he amounts to little more than hired muscle for the real movers and shakers in Kirkwall. At the end of the game, I honestly felt that things wouldn't have turned out much different if Hawke and his entire family had gotten killed on Shit Mountain.
I remember the relationships I had in Mass Effect 1 through 3 versus the 3 DA titles and the original's expansion. I think I remember the characters in DA more than I do what went on. Morrigan was probably the more outstanding character and Alistair. I still don't recall a lot of the dialogue.
ME2 had a darker setting that helped me remember more about the characters than the choices. I think BioWare does a better job if they allow more of a dynamic to the relationship. Conversations are great, but there has to be more events that follow. I don't need to keep talking to someone and nothing happens (outside of falling in love). I'd like more to happen in the essence of life and death.
DA:I was enjoyable. I just didn't feel like I had to connect with anyone. I'd like more of a reason to have someone join my party.
I'm hoping Andromeda does more with the cause and effect feature. The story can be rich in detail and sometimes relationships don't add up at all.
Edit: About being the "Only Hope". He needs people to become the "Only Hope".
He needs to be guided to that decision with the proper characters and not just servants. "Let me impress you by doing this" shouldn't always be the resort or the reward.
RPGs in general generally fill the "player ego-stroke" formula because you generally have to start small and develop your character to be more powerful. It adds to the sense of escalation that compliments game mechanics if your development isn't just in terms of stats and skills but also impact on the story. There are some RPGs that invert that trope but those are pretty rare.
Although I think people who sincerely believe the Dragon Age games follow the "Chosen One" trope are really missing the point. These series has constantly been playing with that trope since the start. The point of the first game is that any of the 6 possible origins were fine to stop the Blight. The second game had a story centered entirely in one city that was the epicenter of bad shit which was entirely outside of the player's control. The third game is the most overt about playing with messiah tropes and the role of religion and it's revealed the player's role in events is a complete fluke and lets the player decide how much that is coincidence or divine intervention.
In a game like Mass Effect 2, the player is constantly told that Shepard is the galaxy's only hope, that he's the only one who can defeat the Reapers, and so on, but the game failed to establish why this is the case. Shepard did not strike me as being particularly charismatic or inspiring, rather, it seemed like the only reason everyone considered him so important was because he was better at making things go from "living" to "dead" than everyone else. As a player, I felt like I had done nothing to earn the level of adulation heaped upon my character.
Huh? Have you played the game recently? In Mass Effect 2 the only people who think Shepard is the galaxy's last hope is the organization who brought him back. And their hope wasn't so much that Shepard would save the galaxy directly but just conduct a "suicide mission" to get awesome tech so that *they* could do it.
For what it's worth though, I just finished DA:I last night, and while I was annoyed by the same trope, I at least appreciated that you could reject being a believer and tell others to do the same.
Sure, most still treated you like a god, but whatever.
Well, escalation is why it can be satisfying at the end of a long, long journey, as the case is with Dragon Quest or something. And why it's merely a tired trope in ME and outright irritating in modern Bethesda games because it either comes too easily or is just constantly uttered by every random jackass on the street.
Damn. As someone just playing a Bioware game for the first time recently (I started playing Mass Effect 1 for the first time a week or so ago), I should not have come into this thread as I've spoiled myself. Nobody's fault but my own.
There is a grade between loser who no one cares about and Chosen One. Games like Planescape, Age of Decadence and Shadowrun all seem to do just fine with this.
Yeah exactly, people are complaining in the thread that you don't have just a regular guy, yet in DA:I you do have a random situation with a regular guy. What's the issue here?
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
Possibly the big issue with this style they've cultivated is that there's no coming back from it. How could they have a DA or ME game that doesn't involve you saving the world from destruction? Players would complain that the stakes aren't high enough compared to previous entries, and they're not talented enough writers to keep escalating the stakes without it feeling rote or empty. The last DA convinced me that they painted themselves in a corner with the whole "you saving the world" shtick, it felt like villain of the week type stuff on way too grand a scale then what it warranted.
I understand your complaint, I really do. I wish BioWare would be more diverse in that respect. But with that being said, the whole Chosen One is a very popular, very common trope in all forms of fiction. It doesn't excuse BioWare or their games, but it's not just them.
I would certainly feel more interested in their games if they did. Played Dragon Age: Inquisition and beat it, so it's not completely worthless, but the story is not very interesting.
Bioware does games that sell very well, so kudos to them for that, but it a sign of weakness that they don't feel more confident in themselves and their games, that they dare to take any risks with their stories.
I really doubt that their games would sell significally less if they made a game around a story like the one in New Vegas, but I don't see them doing such a change.
There was massive blow back on their forums after Dragon Age Origins because of the way the two primary city decisions could pan out. I used to post on the Bioware forums but DA marked a huge change in tone and discourse.
I can't remember the names of characters anymore but a lot of players got upset with the mission when you had to rescue the princess from the rival lord's estate without blowing her cover. If you didn't, she would pretend you were actually kidnapping her. Granted, this lose/lose situation was likely done to railroad the jail level but so many players apparently failed to understand the nuance of the situation and complained about it.
Likewise, there were equally large complaint threads about the Loghain/Alistair situation and how you couldn't have a "good" outcome for everyone.
I think Bioware saw that their current fan base specifically want ego stroking power fantasies even if it came at the sacrifice of their old audience's taste. Whenever they put minor moments in that undermine the player's power they would get complaints. So it seems natural they'd cut those elements.
Huh? Relax. These are two different conversations. I was talking about how people are prone to think that criticism of their favorite game means criticism of their person. I explained that by referring to how people have been groomed to identify with what they consume, i.e. tie their identity to the products they consume.
I had a different response to this, but this isn't really the place for consumerism and psychology.
I actually agree with your criticisms that you've presented. It's extremely simple and played out. I think there's a good conversation to be had about whether a substantial amount of players can handle the social dynamics of having to tolerate or forgive normal confrontation, differing opinions, and challenge. Or whether that perception is false, or just shouldn't be taken into account.
I could easily see mainstream consumers in a very modern "I'm playing as me and telling my own story" avatar role (marketed as such too), partying up and interacting with characters that make them feel wrong about things (as tends to happen in real life), and inevitably feeling like it's the emotional version of Souls game difficulty... culminating in the "I play games to have fun not [x]" reaction. You see it in how some critics struggle with reconciling a Last of Us ending, playing as morally undefinable characters, or bad guys in general.
Obviously there's a point where you have to drag people forward to go where you want to with story, characters etc but I'm almost certain that for a mainstream product there's always going to be something about emotional and psychological depth that hits an irrational "fairness" and "fun" wall in a lot of people, the same way strict 50/50 chance RNG does. If you look at a lot of the really satisfying RPG stories in games, they're from an era where less people were playing them. What came first, though? Did dumbing down RPG's attract new people, or did attracting new people make publishers (and to some extent, developers) assume they had to dumb things down to keep them?
I know Bioware has been guilty of this in the past, but I don't feel the criticism of Inquisition is entirely justified. Sure, on the surface it looks like the most ridiculously literal implementation of the "Chosen One" trope, but it isn't exactly played straight. As others have said,
the Herald just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
, plus he/she meets with plenty of opposition during the game. It's implied throughout that the Inquisition is creating as many problems as it solves, and
the Trespasser DLC breaks down the Inquisitor's power and influence completely
. Also, companions do disagree with your decisions, and it's entirely possible for several to leave the Inquisition completely if you piss them off enough.
Bioware always panders to what Bioware Social these days wants
If you watch the forums, you can literally see stupid shit being molded for the sequels via their echo chamber community. See, romance-able Tali or 'Every romantic interest just happens to be bi and willing to fuck you' in ME3 or Fenris in DA 2 in general
Really? Because I'm a member there (I know, I know) and every time I stop by, 90% of the threads consist of people whining that Bioware isn't giving them what they want.
There was massive blow back on their forums after Dragon Age Origins because of the way the two primary city decisions could pan out. I used to post on the Bioware forums but DA marked a huge change in tone and discourse.
I can't remember the names of characters anymore but a lot of players got upset with the mission when you had to rescue the princess from the rival lord's estate without blowing her cover. If you didn't, she would pretend you were actually kidnapping her. Granted, this lose/lose situation was likely done to railroad the jail level but so many players apparently failed to understand the nuance of the situation and complained about it.
Likewise, there were equally large complaint threads about the Loghain/Alistair situation and how you couldn't have a "good" outcome for everyone.
I think Bioware saw that their current fan base specifically want ego stroking power fantasies even if it came at the sacrifice of their old audience's taste. Whenever they put minor moments in that undermine the player's power they would get complaints. So it seems natural they'd cut those elements.
I used to post on the BSN (I've seen some stuff, man) right up until ME3 was released, and whenever the subject of RPG mechanics was brought up it would become quite obvious that many BioWare fans didn't really want an RPG, where one would face consequences for choices made during character creation or during the game itself.
No, what they wanted was a shooter or an action/adventure game where they could have their character say one thing or another during a cutscene, make one or two meaningless choices, and have a romance with one of the NPCs. Hence Mass Effect 2, where there is no almost negative consequences for your actions at all, where Shepard can defuse a hostage situation by shooting the hostage dead in full view of the police and none of his teammates will offer so much as a peep in protest.
That said, I don't blame them for sticking with their crowd-pleasing formula, especially after the backlash against DA2 and ME3.
There was massive blow back on their forums after Dragon Age Origins because of the way the two primary city decisions could pan out. I used to post on the Bioware forums but DA marked a huge change in tone and discourse.
I can't remember the names of characters anymore but a lot of players got upset with the mission when you had to rescue the princess from the rival lord's estate without blowing her cover. If you didn't, she would pretend you were actually kidnapping her. Granted, this lose/lose situation was likely done to railroad the jail level but so many players apparently failed to understand the nuance of the situation and complained about it.
Likewise, there were equally large complaint threads about the Loghain/Alistair situation and how you couldn't have a "good" outcome for everyone.
I think Bioware saw that their current fan base specifically want ego stroking power fantasies even if it came at the sacrifice of their old audience's taste. Whenever they put minor moments in that undermine the player's power they would get complaints. So it seems natural they'd cut those elements.
I do think bioware seems to listen to its vocal fans of the forums, too much. They need to strike a balance between pleasing the fandom and the broader audience.
Quite a few developers are bad for this, Blizzard does it in their games as well. I don't mind being a good guy but when it feels like they're trying to suck you off via their words you know it's gone overboard.
Yep, you end RoS basically being regarded as a god by angels and demons alike. If I remember right Tyreal even hints that the world could be ruined if the hero turned to darkness because no one could stop him/her. If that's not ego-stroking I'm not sure what is!
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
The Diablo example really makes you realize that the big three all do this ego stroke "you're a god" style, Bioware, Bethesda and Blizzard...and they've sold like a billion units of their collective series', so this is how it will remain.
I love Bioware to bits, but I agree, it's a formula that doesn't always do a lot for me. It feels ironically unsatisfying. On top of that, it's a formula that is understandably hard to do well. I know it's a bit of a hot mess due to the dev time, but DA2 is my favourite Bioware game because of this, even if it isn't perfect in its execution. Hawke's just a bystander to other more important characters (
Isabella, Anders, Meredith
) triggering larger events. The best you can do is a make a choice of which side you're on, hopefully protect the little family you've made, and even then
it still ends in a colossal fuck-up
. Ironically, Hawke would have ended up as the Inquisitor if Bioware had continued on their intended path, and it wouldn't have been such a subversion.
Dragon Age: Origins at least builds you up from nothing quite well, and while Mass Effect 1 still makes you a special snowflake, only your crew believes you. In comparison, I had a lot more trouble suspending my disbelief in ME2, ME3, and DA:I.
Bethesda are definitely worse than Bioware with FO3/FO4/Skyrim, with Skyrim being the biggest offender of the lot. I think Witcher 3 and New Vegas walked the line as well as they can.
This is a weird one and not the same genre, but I've been quite pleased with how Assassin's Creed Syndicate builds up your notoriety and importance in the world. More and more as you conquer an area, your people call out to you as you walk past, your gangs will help you out, etc. The green jackets of the Rooks will fill out the NPCs more and more. You feel a bit more confident! "Hey, I'm Evie/Jacob Frye, look out, London!" Then you have a mission in an area you haven't conquered, and suddenly you're a very vulnerable little fish again. A little assassin fish, mind you, but still quite vulnerable, and everyone wants to punch you in the face on sight. It's a nice ego-check. It won't really be subverting much in the long run - as eventually, London will be overrun with Rooks and be Frye city - but it's a nice, constant ego-check in the mean time. I feel like I've put in the effort to get every single inch of that notoriety and safety that I've gained, so it manages to feel earned in a way that I've only felt in a few games.
Likewise, there were equally large complaint threads about the Loghain/Alistair situation and how you couldn't have a "good" outcome for everyone.
I think Bioware saw that their current fan base specifically want ego stroking power fantasies even if it came at the sacrifice of their old audience's taste. Whenever they put minor moments in that undermine the player's power they would get complaints. So it seems natural they'd cut those elements.
Shit, that's what happened? That's so incredibly disappointing to hear, because DA:O really had some great moments because of the lack of the player's power. I was always really confused why Bioware seemed to loose their teeth a bit after DA: O. Loghain/Alistair is a great example of it. The first time I played through I was
romancing Alistair, but thought some of Loghain's points had merit. I didn't want to kill Loghain when it came down to it, and I had a jolly ending to DA:O where my Warden died, Alistair was a drunk somewhere, and Loghain was a Grey Warden. I was horrified. It was awesome. I love that the best situation I can get out of it on a replay is Alistair married to Best Queen Anora, my Grey Warden being forever alone, and poor Grey Warden Loghain having a god-baby with Morrigan. Nobody is happy, it's great!
It was more than just saving everyone. Every choice the Starchild gave you required logic that, if followed earlier on, would've lead to the Reapers winning. The only option that's consistent with Shepard's battle, Reject, flies in the face of the established universe because it leads to the whole universe's abject failure even though, up to now, that method lead to the galaxy's miraculous survival. It plays out like a Reaper simulation. I presume this is why people thought he was being brainwashed or something.
But what it seems to be after all this time was Casey Hudson and Mac Walters accidentally created a "lotus eater"/"Jesus and the Devil on the mountain"-esque situation. They didn't even know they were doing it, and by the time it was out the door, there was no way for them to change it. It was already burned into the structure of the climax -- too expensive to fix.
ME4's premise of leaving the galaxy behind could be even seen as an acceptance of this. That the scenario is unsalvageable, and the only way forward is to junk it and start completely anew with the fundamental seeds of Mass Effect. In essence, a reboot of the franchise that still acknowledges the old material happened, but must no longer interact.
Unless they bring Shepard and the Reapers back at some point anyway. In which case, uh-oh.
I do think bioware seems to listen to its vocal fans of the forums, too much. They need to strike a balance between pleasing the fandom and the broader audience.
It's kinda funny since the last time I visited BSN, the big complaint was that Bioware didn't seem to be paying attention there anymore with most announcements and interactions being on social media like Twitter and Facebook.
I actually liked the direction they went in Inquisition with the whole thing about the chosen one.
Story spoilers:
You learn that basically the only reason you get those powers is because you were at the wrong place in the wrong time.
There's nothing really special about you, but a lot of people do belive that you are some sort of chosen one. You can decide if you take advantage of this fact and the influence it gives you are if you want to deny it.
They could have developed that aspect of the story more, and given it some bigger choices and consequences. But I don't think it was such a generic "chosen one" type of story as the OP makes it sound.
Anyway. I doubt they will depart from the formula. It seems to work and players like it. Videogames work as an escape or fantasy for a lot of people. Not everyone wants to be a nobody in real life and play as a medieval nobody in a virtual world
It was more than just saving everyone. Every choice the Starchild gave you required logic that, if followed earlier on, would've lead to the Reapers winning. The only option that's consistent with Shepard's battle, Reject, flies in the face of the established universe because it leads to the whole universe's abject failure even though, up to now, that method lead to the galaxy's miraculous survival. It plays out like a Reaper simulation. I presume this is why people thought he was being brainwashed or something.
For me, destroy almost worked pretty well and felt consisten with Shepard's Battle.
The starchild brings up this cycle of synthetics killing organics and presents it as an undeniable fact.
My Shepard says screw that, you are wrong. Cooperation is possible. An AI has become one of the core member of my crew and even began a relationship with a human. Legion, in the end, was someone I considered to be a friend and after many struggles we finally amanged to see a future of peace with the Geth. So no, the story about the neverending cycle is wrong and we don't need the reapers.
It's just a shame that "destroy" basically also kills the Geth. It felt pretty shitty after what happened to Legion
It really doesn't. Hawke is only famous because of Varric's story and the "far reaching impact" was actually an action that Anders took that Cassandra thought you were responsible for.
If the Geth are alive in your playthrough, and then you genocide their entire species - one that had just broken the neverending cycle the Reapers were talking about, by the way, so think about the deep meaning behind that - you're coming to a gigantically ugly compromise with the Reapers instead of proving that they're wrong.
Think about it this way. Would you genocide all humans to destroy the Reapers? All Turians? All Asari? They all went into that fight with you hoping that if they won, the reward would be their species's survival. If they lost, they would die, down to the last. Except now you, Shepard, are winning but their people are paying the same price.
Unite the galaxy if it's prudent. Decimate it, if it's all the same. If you're taking on a part of the Reapers' philisophy and their job, at a moment when the Galaxy is at its most vulnerable, who are you really?
I can't help but think of Undertale and its Genocide run, and what your character becomes at the end.
Jep, which is why Inquisition "counts" so to speak.
It's also not always a bad thing, games that deal better with this, like the Witcher or alpha protocoll,, still do plenty of ego stroking.
It's when the only feedback the world gives you is: "your are awesome, no really, you are the best, we couldn't do this without you, see: even the most random NPC in the boonies knows how awesome you are!" that it gets ridiculous.
The gameworld can fuck me over too sometimes, i can take it. It usually makes for a better narrative and it makes dramatic moments count.
While I understand where the criticism of the "ego stroking" formula is coming from, I actually find it hilarious - I'm often laughing out loud in Bioware games about how NPC's bend over backward to please the avatar because s/he is apparently an incarnation of Christ.
Yes, a lot of it is just sloppy dialogue writing, but I think at least part of it is done in a knowing, "wink, wink" sort of way. And for what it's worth, I enjoy these games regardless, because I know exactly what I'm getting when I buy them... I don't expect Bioware, of all developers, to reinvent the narrative wheel.
I love Bioware to bits, but I agree, it's a formula that doesn't always do a lot for me. It feels ironically unsatisfying. On top of that, it's a formula that is understandably hard to do well. I know it's a bit of a hot mess due to the dev time, but DA2 is my favourite Bioware game because of this, even if it isn't perfect in its execution. Hawke's just a bystander to other more important characters (
Isabella, Anders, Meredith
) triggering larger events. The best you can do is a make a choice of which side you're on, hopefully protect the little family you've made, and even then
it still ends in a colossal fuck-up
. Ironically, Hawke would have ended up as the Inquisitor if Bioware had continued on their intended path, and it wouldn't have been such a subversion.
Dragon Age: Origins at least builds you up from nothing quite well, and while Mass Effect 1 still makes you a special snowflake, only your crew believes you. In comparison, I had a lot more trouble suspending my disbelief in ME2, ME3, and DA:I.
I agree with this sentiment. I still prefer DA:O but I always thought, outside of gameplay, DA2 was very harshly critiqued. People were panning the fact the game wasn't 'bigger' and didn't involved a 'saving the world' plot. They were also pissed that you couldn't change certain outcomes. The side-characters were more touch-and-go, they were happier to disagree with you and overall it actually felt like they had lives outside of being your party members. Yet here we are, having someone tear into Bioware for supposedly making each game the same (regardless of the fact that these are mostly sequels anyway).
I do agree though that DA:I goes overboard in this regard. Part of that is because that is the whole point, but still, it doesn't feel great. The execution was bad too, from
random dude walking in on evil dude, to the fact that it was so plainly obvious who the apparition we saw was (and it's not like I remember much about the DA universe, but even I thought it was weird everyone jumped to Andraste before Justinia... I was like 'eeh?really?')
DA:O and DA2 aren't that obvious, with a lot more going on under the hood.
I somewhat agree, though I've been playing Dragon Age: Origins for the very first time and that game doesn't seem to indulge in stroking the player's ego all that often. The approval system is basically designed around giving your allies a voice in response to your actions, and can't please everyone. Characters like Sten, Morrigan and Shale are initially confrontational and standoffish, and it takes a while before they warm up to you. There are even a few moments where your allies will argue with you (and with each other, haha).
I haven't played DA:I, but a good example of an ally directly questioning the protagonist is when you tell Wynne you intend to do whatever the hell you want as the warden.
I told Morrigan that I didn't kill her mother. She basically told me to fuck off and then went on to ditch the group. Yikes.
. NPCs in general don't seem to bend over backwards for you either; you typically have to convince them to help you through persuasion or outright intimidation, and in some cases
like with Bann Teagan during the Redcliffe questline, you can't get him to do what you want no matter what.
So yeah, I don't think you're wrong in regards to some of the other games, but DA:O is pretty good about making the player character important without going overboard. You're pretty fallible in that game.
EDIT: There are other examples like Sten
declaring you're unfit to be leader and outright attacking you, or Alistair losing his shit if you let Connor die. And defiling the urns... oh boy, several party members turn hostile over that...
I somewhat agree, though I've been playing Dragon Age: Origins for the very first time and that game doesn't seem to indulge in stroking the player's ego all that often. The approval system is basically designed around giving your allies a voice in response to your actions, and can't please everyone. Characters like Sten, Morrigan and Shale are initially confrontational and standoffish, and it takes a while before they warm up to you. There are even a few moments where your allies will argue with you (and with each other, haha).
I haven't played DA:I, but a good example of an ally directly questioning the protagonist is when you tell Wynne you intend to do whatever the hell you want as the warden.
I told Morrigan that I didn't kill her mother. She basically told me to fuck off and then went on to ditch the group. Yikes.
. NPCs in general don't seem to bend over backwards for you either; you typically have to convince them to help you through persuasion or outright intimidation, and in some cases
like with Bann Teagan during the Redcliffe questline, you can't get him to do what you want no matter what.
So yeah, I don't think you're wrong in regards to some of the other games, but DA:O is pretty good about making the player character important without going overboard. You're pretty fallible in that game.
That's pretty much a legacy feature from the Baldur's Gate series. Most party members had their own moral principles and would eventually leave if your decisions clashed with them too many times, or if they eventually have enough of someone else in your party. Pairing up characters from wildly different beliefs like chaotic evil and lawful good and watch them interact is one of the most entertaining things you can do in those games.
I haven't actually bothered playing the Dragon Age sequels, but if that element was actually taken out then the AAA regression of BioWare is even worse than I thought.
