735 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

In CRPG's they 1st decided how the deal with the characters they created for you to choose from, and then you create the character. That, to me changes the "my character" to the DM's character(And I just choose which one to play with the given choices). Sure, you can play tabletops like that as well, but then the character is not yours.

You are going to have to clarify for me -

unless you mean saying "these are the classes and races you can choose from, and here are the game rules for character creation" and/or "the party starts here in the town of GenericStartingVillageA"...

how does a game like Oblivion or Icewind Dale or Bard's Tale or Temple of Elemental Evil (or dozens more) "create characters for you to choose from"?  The class/race combos, skill points, ability scores, spells, weapons, names, etc., are all chooseable by you, not pre-packaged (I mean, most of the game come with pre-gens you CAN choose, but you can ignore them)

Limited options in character creation != character created for you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Being permited to ignore something does not abolish it's existence.

Good thing I didn't say that.

Stop assuming an excluded middle.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you weren't forced to acknowledge it before then it wasn't necessarily there.

Um... what??

See?  I didn't say it wasn't there.  I said it wasn't necessarily there.

You're assuming (for reasons I can't explain) that if I'm willing to allow for the possibility of something not being true then I'm insisting that it isn't true.  You're assuming an excluded middle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Meltemph wrote...

So a persons ACTIONS give no insight into a persons personality or general tone?[/quote]
If you were trying to judge other people, sure, those would give you insight.  But insight isn't knowledge - there's no necessary connection between behaviour and personality because you can't know someone else's motives for behaving as he does.

As for your character, you don't need insight into his personality.  You have perfect knowledge of his personality already.
[quote]OR that no matter what, the NPC's will always give the exact same line, no matter in what way you say it?[/quoet]
That's meta-game knowledge.  It's irrelevant to gameplay decisions.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're assuming (for reasons I can't explain) that if I'm willing to allow for the possibility of something not being true then I'm insisting that it isn't true.  You're assuming an excluded middle.

I... don't think that this distinction accomplishes anything...
The fact that you are allowed to ignore the writing does mean that the writing isn't necessarily there. You're even given a text rendition of it and reactions of other characters based on it, which are even openly identifiable outside of initial play.

[Meltemph]

how does a game like Oblivion or Icewind Dale or Bard's Tale or Temple of Elemental Evil (or dozens more) "create characters for you to choose from"? The class/race combos, skill points, ability scores, spells, weapons, names, etc., are all chooseable by you, not pre-packaged (I mean, most of the game come with pre-gens you CAN choose, but you can ignore them)

I'm not talking about the aesthetics or in-game abilities of the character. I am talking about the tangible actions, tones, and personality that games either limit or are void of.

As for the games you are talking about, in each of those(except maybe bards tale), the game is completely run through the world, with very minimum interaction with any real meaning with the characters in the story.

If you don't wan't the type of stories Bioware delivers on and want more of a "sandbox" approach to a game, then yes you can have that, but it comes at a cost. And that cost is much less interactivity with the character you are playing.

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I... don't think that this distinction accomplishes anything...
The fact that you are allowed to ignore the writing does mean that the writing isn't necessarily there.

The intended tone of the PC's lines isn't necessarily there, as its presence or absence makes no material difference.

If it were necessarily there, then you could show it to me.  It would be demonstrably there.  But you can't show it to me.  Therefore, it is unreasonable to believe that it is there.

 You're even given a text rendition of it and reactions of other characters based on it, which are even openly identifiable outside of initial play.

You are not given the reactions of other characters.  Those happen after the choice is made.

Only events that precede the selection are relevant to that selection.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If it were necessarily there, then you could show it to me.  It would be demonstrably there.  But you can't show it to me.  Therefore, it is unreasonable to believe that it is there.

You are not given the reactions of other characters.  Those happen after the choice is made.

Only events that precede the selection are relevant to that selection.

It is and you are and I can. It just doesn't in real time during the initial playthrough. Once the options are established all of those things are completely possible. Perhaps you could technically consider it metagaming, or you could instead consider it knowledge of the options available for role playing.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

how does a game like Oblivion or Icewind Dale or Bard's Tale or Temple of Elemental Evil (or dozens more) "create characters for you to choose from"? The class/race combos, skill points, ability scores, spells, weapons, names, etc., are all chooseable by you, not pre-packaged (I mean, most of the game come with pre-gens you CAN choose, but you can ignore them)

I'm not talking about the aesthetics or in-game abilities of the character. I am talking about the tangible actions, tones, and personality that games either limit or are void of.

As for the games you are talking about, in each of those(except maybe bards tale), the game is completely run through the world, with very minimum interaction with any real meaning with the characters in the story.

If you don't wan't the type of stories Bioware delivers on and want more of a "sandbox" approach to a game, then yes you can have that, but it comes at a cost. And that cost is much less interactivity with the character you are playing.

Oh, no, I don't want open sandbox.  What I want is the ability to make my own character, then I'll happily follow the straight path through a linear story!   But that's just my personal preference.

And again - " I am talking about the tangible actions, tones, and personality that games either limit or are void of."  That's going to need a bit more explaining or examples so I know what you mean / where you are coming from.

Not trying to be a jerk - I'm honestly interested in what you mean.

[Meltemph]

If you were trying to judge other people, sure, those would give you insight. But insight isn't knowledge - there's no necessary connection between behaviour and personality because you can't know someone else's motives for behaving as he does.

Motives are motives, the reason for doing something, but the fact that you are doing it does tell about ones personality.

As for your character, you don't need insight into his personality. You have perfect knowledge of his personality already.

Exactly my point. You can only have the type of personality that will do the actions in game.

That's meta-game knowledge. It's irrelevant to gameplay decisions.

But the fact is, is that it is their and that your actions can not change in anyway those responses.

[Meltemph]

Not trying to be a jerk - I'm honestly interested in what you mean.

Actions, tones, or anything else that are forced on me due to the already decided choice of how to specifically deal with my character, no matter my choices.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

Not trying to be a jerk - I'm honestly interested in what you mean.

Actions, tones, or anything else that are forced on me due to the already decided choice of how to specifically deal with my character, no matter my choices.

...

So, when the DM makes his adventure and decides that a certain Baron will not negotiate regardless of any player's Diplomacy score, thus chosing at that point that no player (including you) can negotiate with the Baron, he's limited your options and no matter how many times you "choose to negotiate" it is not possible to do.

Or am I misunderstanding again?

A pre-designed module or computer game has to limit options, by necessity... but so, too, do DMs.  And real life limits options to real people.

Not having unlimited options, or not being allowed to make certain choices you would want to, is not limiting your character.  I would love to, in real life, go visit Greece right now.  Or send a script straight to someone who can get it published.  But reality is not going to let either of those things happen right at this moment.  Does that mean I'm not my own person?

Again, the "constraints" and "pre-determined conditions of the world around you" do not, IMO, limit you in running your character your own way.

I think there is a world of difference between "your last name is Smith, you were born to John and Jane who put you through the best schools and made sure you were a successful scientist.  Now choose - what is your first name, which branch of science are you good at... oh, and and you male or female" limiting your character creation, because it is giving you a quite defined shell you are stuffed into that you can just tweak here and there...
and "you have 6 races to choose from, 6 classes to choose from, pick your appreance from these 20 pictures, now here's the game story created for you to move through and here are the choices the character you made can make."

The first is a character template given to you that you can flesh out a few details.
The second is you making a character but that character being limited by the story he or she is placed on on what choices he or she can make.

Limited story choices in the game, specifically limited by the story they want to tell or the scope of the campaign or whatever, are not tied at all directly into the character you make.

I'm confused - I think maybe you are mixing "making and playing your own character" with "making whatever I want and being able to do whatever I want at any moment" -
or I'm STILL really not understand what you mean.

[the_one_54321]

MerinTB wrote...
So, when the DM makes his adventure and decides that a certain Baron will not negotiate regardless of any player's Diplomacy score, thus chosing at that point that no player (including you) can negotiate with the Baron, he's limited your options and no matter how many times you "choose to negotiate" it is not possible to do.

There are ways to defines such instances such as your example so that they fit into the rules. The Dungeon Masters Guide for D&D goes on at length about adjuication, for instance. It's a matter of giving a thorough explanation of why such a thing would occur that way, surpassing even incredibly high bonuses in the PC stats. Tables are even given that show examples of the check penalties that will apply for certain incredibly difficult tasks, and how those penalties can in some cases exceed possible success for all bug godly stats.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Exactly my point. You can only have the type of personality that will do the actions in game.

That actually contradicts my position.  Since you can't know what actions are possible within the game (taking your view that the dialogue options constrain your character's expression), then you can't have knowledge of your character at all until after you've seen the entire game.

That's the very antithesis of roleplaying.

But the fact is, is that it is their and that your actions can not change in anyway those responses.

I fail to see how that matters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It is and you are and I can. It just doesn't in real time during the initial playthrough.

Then it doesn't exist in any playthrough.  Time is linear.  The choice precedes the reaction.  The character is unaware he's in a game.

If you take into account the results of your actions using meta-game knowledge, and that influences your selection, you're not roleplaying.

[Fishy]

MerinTB wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
So, I'll just say, I, personally do not feel I have enough control in games "LIKE" BG/DA/BG2 or ect for the character to actually feel truly mine, with only my perspective on the character.

And that, my friend, is an absolutely fair assessment.

The thing that bothers me about people tossing out moldy chestnuts like "cRPGs can never give you the table-top RPG experience" is mostly that each person mimicking the statement probably means something completely different than most everyone else who says it.

But, yes, a good end to the discussion.  From where you were coming from you never feel like you have enough control.

For me, I accept the limitations of working in a pre-created adventure (same as I would for a module or a DM's own world/adventure - you can't just do whatever you want in those, either, as the game is limited to a certain place and scope and set of prepared characters and events.)  The difference between table-top and cRPG at that point is how much of a jerk does the player want to be in pushing at the boundries of what the DM created/is running... how big an a-hole they are in "I don't wanna be railroaded - I'm going to the opposite side of the continent from your dungeon!  My character, my choice!  Nyaaaa!"

There's still too much misconception about hack'n'slash.The problem remain that too many people believe(There's not many of them , but the few of them we hear more often) that hack'n'slash mean an action packed adventure a la god of war(Beat'em'up)

Most western RPG are based upon Hack'n'slash.Maybe only JRPG and very few PC title are turn based.
NWN was semi turn based and hack'n'slash.They used the turn based ruleset of dungeons and dragon but created a somewhat hack'n'slash version  of it.Dragon age used a somewhat similiar idea but was more hack'n'slash with a pause and isometric view rather than turn based like NWN (Based on roll) .

Now let's get this straight .. and that the last time i voice myself on these kind of thread.
Dragon age origins use hack'n'slash game with a more subtle turn based combat than JRPG or the dungeons and dragon franchise.

I'm out.

[joriandrake]

reading this thread made Varric a sad kitten

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The character is unaware he's in a game.

But you are not. The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge information that is given to you in the game does not mean that you are not given the information.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you take into account the results of your actions using meta-game knowledge, and that influences your selection, you're not roleplaying.

It's not metagaming if you chose to interpret it as role playing information that available to the player to make informed character decisions within the context of the story and the character's personality. You are simply chosing to reject it based on silly technicality of when you are given the information.

By your definition there is no such thing as a game that isn't metagamed unless it's the very first time you play it and you don't have any information about the game at all before you start it.

[In Exile]

Meltemph wrote...
It seems to me, like you are trying to do everything you can for the character to remain "you", so to speak as much as possible, where as me or the_one(do not mean to speak for you so correct me if I am wrong), for instance, we didn't recognize the character as truly ours because we recognize the limitations and accept that the character is not ours.

I always find this argument fascinating, because for me, it is precisely VO which makes the character feel like it is "me" and it is the lack of VO that makes the character so very much not "me" and precisely the reason I like VO over non-VO.

I think it has to do with whether or not someone is an internal or external person. To some people, it seems control over the character has to do with how much control they have over internal states. To me, it is about reactive consequences in the world. So long as I can reasonably predict what a character will do, have multiple choices about how to do it, and most of all have a character in the foreground versus background of the action, that character is "me".

MerinTB wrote...
Well, add one to the tally.
I imagine my
own character, my own tones...
and while I don't go to some extremes
that Sylvius will talk about (walking to the base in ME1 "because my
character would") I certainly do make choices based on a personality I
created, and I "interpret" NPC reactions to me, and a heck of a lot of
"off-cameara" stuff, to fit a narrative playing in my head as I go
through the game.

Right, I can't understand this. To me,this is just fan fiction ( I do not mean this in a derogatory way; there is just no other word I can think of to describe how segregated and alien it seems from the real game).

It's probably a
generational thing - we "old-timers" developed our imaginations before
graphics and sound "gave you" what you could have otherwise imagined
yourself.

It is the same thing as people who prefer books to movies - they like what their mind creates far more than what a director and actors and such can bring.

Right, but the issue is that you have a standard of evidence in the game versus the book. The best way I can put it is that the book does not come with illustrations every third page. If it did, that would dramatically hamper the ability of the imagination to do anything. In fact, I would argue, it completely takes away your ability to imagine the environment.

I would go further, however, and say that imagining "off-screen" content is like writting up an extra chapter in abook and just stapling it in.

MerinTB wrote...

Drop this illogical "choices don't exist
in single player games" nonsense.

Choice means picking one of
several options.

If I picked the Dwarven Noble origin in DA:O,
was that a false choice?  Did I play the same beginning as the Dalish
Elf origin?

What, no, wait... I picked on of 6 options, and the
options were identical?  Really?

Stop it.

Everyone.

Stop
saying "choices don't exist."

Here is the sense that I think they mean choices do not exist.

Do you recall the conversation with Alistair in Redcliffe when he reveals that he is the son of Maric? One of the possible dialogue options is something to the effect of: "You're going to tell me you're an idiot?" right after Alistair says "There's something I need to tell you" (paraphrasing in both cases).

Some people are inclined to argue there is a choice of sorts in that scene - that the line the PC says can be said in more than one way by more than one character. When we say choice does not exist, (or at least when I would say it) I am refering to the fact that it is in fact impossible to have that line delivered in any other way but one.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 octobre 2010 - 10:57 .

[DanaScu]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

I just think the whole exaggerated narrative is a bit stupid to be showing off as the first thing for DA2. On one hand you have people that may look at it and like the over the top blood, only to be disappointed when its more mundane in the real version. And then you have people who realize thats the exaggerated version but are expecting the "real" version to be drastically different- its still going to pretty much look like what you saw. It just seems silly to show off the exaggerated part of the game as the first gameplay anyone sees of DA2.

Well, we have to show something, and the simple truth is that the combat does look very different, and is thus worth showing to people. So you go to, say, PAX, and you stand in line for four hours or whatever, and then you are presented a chance to kick gratuitous amounts of ass. And then the scary lady in black armor bursts into the scene you're watching, says "Bull****!" and promptly starts dismantling how over the top that part of the game was. And then, you get to play the real, and far more humble start to Hawke's life.

So, in ten minutes, you get to see:
In short, you get a microcosm of DA2, which is, generally speaking, a very good thing to leave the show floor with, and not, in fact, "silly." If anything, it's honest, because yes, that is how the game plays, and yes, we think it's a lot of fun, and yes, the opening is over the top, which is a nice way to start, for a change instead of some sort of floor scrubbing minigame. It's not like we're going to open a show demo with a detailed examination of the journal screen.

And as for why Bioware would show only the exaggerated part, I most people know that we did not, in fact, show the exaggerated part. Someone captured the opening moments of a larger demo and posted it against our wishes. That's a shame, I think the demo works better with the larger context, and at some point, I hope to share that larger context with you folks who didn't get to attend any shows where DA2 was. But good things come in time.

Someone should post particulars outside the demo then. Cause some people are missing the "microcosm" aspect. Someone else posted this,but it shows what people who aren't "rabid fans/anything changed is teh greatest ideas ever" are getting out of the demo. http://www.criticalg...eurogamer-expo/

Going by that description, it isn't something I'd be pre-ordering. Even if I didn't already have my own reasons to not get excited about it.

[Icinix]

DanaScu wrote...

(SNIP)

Someone should post particulars outside the demo then. Cause some people are missing the "microcosm" aspect. Someone else posted this,but it shows what people who aren't "rabid fans/anything changed is teh greatest ideas ever" are getting out of the demo. http://www.criticalg...eurogamer-expo/

Going by that description, it isn't something I'd be pre-ordering. Even if I didn't already have my own reasons to not get excited about it.

"But there’s no way in the world anyone could make a judgement on this game after 20 mins except the flippant, the mad and the people who like to leave gobby messages in comment boxes. So I’m not going to." - Neil.

LOL.  
Although...

"...is twenty minutes of hack and slash..." - Neil.

This scares me a little.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
Here is the sense that I think they mean choices do not exist.

Do you recall the conversation with Alistair in Redcliffe when he reveals that he is the son of Maric? One of the possible dialogue options is something to the effect of: "You're going to tell me you're an idiot?" right after Alistair says "There's something I need to tell you" (paraphrasing in both cases).

Some people are inclined to argue there is a choice of sorts in that scene - that the line the PC says can be said in more than one way by more than one character. When we say choice does not exist, (or at least when I would say it) I am refering to the fact that it is in fact impossible to have that line delivered in any other way but one.

That's an example of where all that matters is what you say - and that Alistair is going to tell you something anyway.

We can go around and around like this, but I think the salient point of what I was disagreeing strongly with was the "no choices" - the absolutism of that statement, the "no" as in "not any" -
you give an example (and for the sake of argument I'll grant it) of a dialog choice that doesn't have an effect, and therefore is the illusion of choice (or a meaningless choice - don't argue this, Sylvius, I don't agree either - I'm just granting it for the sake of argument)...

that's one example out of many.

Showing one example where this is no choice in that example or a fake choice doesn't mean that all single player games have NO choice.

I hope that difference is easy to understand.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why do you keep doing that?  Why do you think the PC is acting contrary to your preference?

I can see thinking this was a problem in ME, but in DAO the tone isn't represented.  Why do you think your PC isn't behaving as you would prefer?

Because, as I have said many times, some of us accept an external standard of evidence. Which is to say that the in-game reality is the joint product of the internal state of the PC and the reactions of all the other NPCs.

If the NPCs have a line delivered a particular way, it leads to an absolute breakdown of the game if we assume they are insane and misinterpret lines left and right (it leads to the case where Duncan is alive and in the party the entire game, or the case where you are a shapeshifting alien lizard investigating the blight before it spreads to your homeworld, or Captain Picard off on a run during the holodock, with Flemeth really being Q).

Effective roleplay = progression through the game.  Roleplay is the point of the entire genre.

You're defining progression in some way I don't understand.

From a design standpoint, it is not dialogue that advances the game. It is reaching the flags and killing the neccesary enemies. To complete the game, the only thing neccesarry is to hit each flag. 

I hit the 1-2-3-4 keys in a random pattern created by a random number generator and I will progress through the game. Creating a character, considering a background, designing a personality - these are all things that are an aspect to enjoying the game, and playing it right, but they are not things that are required to progressing through it.

Really?  So you're arguing that the NPCs can always read the PC's mind, and I'm the only one questioning that?

That seems implausible.

No; I think misunderstandings are possible. Except that they are only possible when they can be addressed as such. So for example, I tell Morrigan that my friend always told me I was a big man. She interprets this as some sort of sexual innuedo. I consider a misunderstanding possible only if there is a dialogue choice that lets you address it. Otherwise the line was said and delivered straight, because otherwise I am forced to assume that there is no established reality in the game.

I insist that I can, but as long as I think I can meet it, it's a fun way to play the game.

Right. I won't disagree with that; I have no intention to tell you how you should or should not play your game. I am just pointing out when you are making a reasoning error in trying to generalize things to a question of design.

And it is my position that this is a wholly absurd position.  The full text of the line is available to you, there are no time pressures on the selection of that line, and the game never contradicts whatever tone you choose yourself.

All of that is irrelevant. It is not time, and it is not text that determines the meaning of a sentence. The pragmatics of the phrase are forever hidden to you.

Consider the statement: "That was a great idea."

There are multiple ways to interpret this. It could be "That was a great idea." and you want to point out that compared to other ideas, this particular idea was great. It might be "That was a great idea." and you are sarcastic; your meaning was in fact that this idea was not great at all. It might be "That was a great idea." and you want to point out that it was the theoretical formulation that was great, whereas the practical application was not.

Giving me only the sentence, even with context, still does not mean I can always know for certain how the line will be delivered and interpreted.

You say, I as the player add the pragmatic emphasis to produce the intended meaning. My counter is that in-game, other characters take what you say to be otherwise and no opportunity exists to correct them (in some cases, you are even forced to act as if you meant the line in one particular way). To give an example of that, suppose you have the statement "Yeah, let's do that." It could be straight and affirmative - as in, yes, we should follow the course of action. Or it could be mocking and sarcastic. Suppose you give the sarcastic tone. But the game plays it straight. You are then locked into a course of action where you are doing the opposite of what you want.

All of this is to prove that in fact, it is not the case at all that merely having the full written statement and the time to interpet it is not sufficient to say that you can have it achieve any intended meaning at all. 

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
So, when the DM makes his adventure and decides that a certain Baron will not negotiate regardless of any player's Diplomacy score, thus chosing at that point that no player (including you) can negotiate with the Baron, he's limited your options and no matter how many times you "choose to negotiate" it is not possible to do.

There is no comparable analogy for a cRPG here. In tabletop, you could say, "I want to negotiate," and the DM could simply counter with "You failed, fight anyway." A cRPG might never allow you the option to initiate a negotiation.

Here is an example. A Cousland at the Landsmeet in DA:O cannot try to rally the nobles to win the crown for himself/herself and depose both Alistair and Anora. In P&P, this could be acomplished by the PC trying to rally the nobles, and being refused. In DA:O, this course of action is just outright impossible.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That actually contradicts my position.  Since you can't know what actions are possible within the game (taking your view that the dialogue options constrain your character's expression), then you can't have knowledge of your character at all until after you've seen the entire game.

That's the very antithesis of roleplaying

That's not true. I will bring up my example of the landsmeet again.

My human male noble would (and could only) rally the nobles to depose both Alistair and Anora. This was the plan since Cailan and his family died at Ostagar.

But this choice is impossible. There is never an option to do this. The game simply does not allow it. Yet my character would never do anything else. So this character is now impossible, and it did not require metagame knowledge or even completing the game (in fact, I stopped my playthrough at Denerim after the DR choice with my mage precisely to play a Cousland that could be king; one major source of my dissapointment with DA:O  stems from the fact this one outcome was impossible).

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
That's an example of where all that matters is what you say - and that Alistair is going to tell you something anyway.

I should have elaborated more. If you choose that line, Alistair always interpets it as an insult and you lose influence. It is not possible to deliver the line as a joke, despite the fact that you can deliver other lines about his intelligence as jokes. It is possible and arbitrary to determine when exactly the game decides to let you do this, and across playthroughs, it is never possible for any choice to mean anything other than one thing.

This is why, tangentially, I argue that VO is irrelevant. Because we are already locked into a single tone and voice which each line in virtue of how it is written and interpreted.

We can go around and around like this, but I think the salient point of what I was disagreeing strongly with was the "no choices" - the absolutism of that statement, the "no" as in "not any" -
you give an example (and for the sake of argument I'll grant it) of a dialog choice that doesn't have an effect, and therefore is the illusion of choice (or a meaningless choice - don't argue this, Sylvius, I don't agree either - I'm just granting it for the sake of argument)...

that's one example out of many.

This is an example which I generally to the entire dialogue system. Put another way, there is no dialogue choice where you have, across more than one character, a choice. If a shy anti-human dalish elf picks one line, and an extroverted human noble picks the same line, it is delivered in identical fashion with no difference between the two.

This is my claim. So when I say no choice, I mean you have no choice but to have multiple characters saying the exact same thing on any given playthrough.

The only choices you have are where there are divergent outcomes, and these are very few.

Do you understand my point? I am not trying to show a particular case; I am making a general argument regarding all dialogue choices.

In DA:O you have less than 20 choices. One for your Origin. One for your romance. Two the DR/US. 6 choices for an outcome in each major game branch. A few distinct outcomes for some quests (i.e. when you can kill or let a character live).

That is it. I am in fact arguing that you have almost no choice in an cRPG, as a neccesary consequence of the design.