168 réponses à ce sujet

[Harle Cerulean]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Not to try and squash conversation, but can we take the statistical analysis of Tank v. Tank to PM? It's really off topic to the current discussion at hand.


Given that the concept for a RNG outcome of being bad, as in a preset attribute that could not be "fixed" with a reload seems to have been met with some resistance, I would like to point out very few people have responded to my second option outlined (after all, this is the reason I put forth different options/styles in the OP).

Would people be okay with losing gold, having equipment destroyed or just feeling like someone "pulled a fast one on you" if it resulted in some in-game good?

Saving baskets of kittens, or proving an innocent man accused unjustly or even a piece of mind that someone did not suffer when they died.

I think what would have been a good alternative to the Leandra quest would be if you took the right proactive steps to warn her and track the killer down, she would be mid-"surgery" or something similar. She would still die, but could express gratitude for not being turned into a monster before she died. Similarly, if our Hawke did things kill the wrong suspect in Act 2 or didn't pay attention to the Lillie's line your mother says, we would have gotten the same scene we saw in DA2, where she has been turned into a zombie. If, in that ending, she would have said "kill me, save me from being this horrible monster" with her dying breaths, that would have felt significant.

Same end result - Leandra is killed by a Mage serial killer - but the nuances that we would have made her ending more palatable to her would be worth it.

I don't think destroying an item that the player has worked for - saving up gold, etc., in a quest is a good idea, especially if it's something that would be sprung on the player without their knowledge.  Even a good xp reward isn't enough to make up for the frustration of having something you worked for taken away unexpectedly and seemingly-randomly.  If it was completely player choice - ie, "You could save this halla by levering open this trap with your sword/daggers/staff, but..." and then the player can choose to risk their weapon by opening the trap, or leave the halla to die - that's one thing.  Still an annoying thing, to me, because the only purpose I can see for it would be to create a sense of sacrifice - and surely there are better ways to do that than 'that 200-gold sword you saved for? Gone!"  Ways that don't mechanically punish the player by weakening them in further combat by destroying their best weapon, while also irritating them that they even bothered wasting their money on the weapon.

But to do so without warning, without choice?  No.  Full stop.

[Fast Jimmy]

Beerfish wrote...

As long as their are repercusions for NOT doing the trouble quest that is fine. Don't get involved with Petrice and you might find yourself and the things you face as being worse than if you had.

The worst thing about the Petrice series of quests was how Hawke and the mother superior stood around and watched her get assassinated in the Chantry and shrugged his shoulders.

This sounds like a cool idea... although I'm not sure tying content to NOT doing a quest would be something developers would need to worry about, honestly. The world of gaming is full of completionists who would see that they did every quest imaginable. Also, there would be timing issues, as well... in DA2, this was easily handled with the Act set ups. If you didn't do a quest in Act 1, it could tie into how things play out in Act 2 or 3. But for a game like DA:O, when would the hammer fall? If I decided not to smuggle the lyrium from Dust Town to the Tower, would the negative consequence play out immediately after I refused? After I had completed the next major plot area? If I had completed the Deep Roads segment? Or the Circle's? 

I would also be hesitant to not offer a "clean break" for the player. If they don't want to do the quest because their spidey sense is tingling (or they metagamed), then they shouldn't feel forced to doing it, where they are punished if they do, but are even MORE punished if they don't. Its a shaky road to start out with, so I don't think the player would want to throw up their hands in frustration right from the get-go.

[nightscrawl]

Lol I just thought of this... I can imagine players carrying around extra gear, equipping crappy gear when they are accepting/turning in a quest, and then their normal gear for combat. Even in cinematic games, the times when the last enemy hits 0 hp and an automatic cutscene starts (during Offered and Lost) are pretty rare, as there is usually a physical checkpoint on the map you have to get to in order for a cutscene to trigger (during All That Remains), or even Enemies Among Us, which has you fight Tarohne, end combat, and then you have to actually click on Keran to proceed.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 février 2013 - 04:06 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Not to try and squash conversation, but can we take the statistical analysis of Tank v. Tank to PM? It's really off topic to the current discussion at hand.


Given that the concept for a RNG outcome of being bad, as in a preset attribute that could not be "fixed" with a reload seems to have been met with some resistance, I would like to point out very few people have responded to my second option outlined (after all, this is the reason I put forth different options/styles in the OP).

Would people be okay with losing gold, having equipment destroyed or just feeling like someone "pulled a fast one on you" if it resulted in some in-game good?

Saving baskets of kittens, or proving an innocent man accused unjustly or even a piece of mind that someone did not suffer when they died.

I think what would have been a good alternative to the Leandra quest would be if you took the right proactive steps to warn her and track the killer down, she would be mid-"surgery" or something similar. She would still die, but could express gratitude for not being turned into a monster before she died. Similarly, if our Hawke did things kill the wrong suspect in Act 2 or didn't pay attention to the Lillie's line your mother says, we would have gotten the same scene we saw in DA2, where she has been turned into a zombie. If, in that ending, she would have said "kill me, save me from being this horrible monster" with her dying breaths, that would have felt significant.

Same end result - Leandra is killed by a Mage serial killer - but the nuances that we would have made her ending more palatable to her would be worth it.

I don't think destroying an item that the player has worked for - saving up gold, etc., in a quest is a good idea, especially if it's something that would be sprung on the player without their knowledge.  Even a good xp reward isn't enough to make up for the frustration of having something you worked for taken away unexpectedly and seemingly-randomly.  If it was completely player choice - ie, "You could save this halla by levering open this trap with your sword/daggers/staff, but..." and then the player can choose to risk their weapon by opening the trap, or leave the halla to die - that's one thing.  Still an annoying thing, to me, because the only purpose I can see for it would be to create a sense of sacrifice - and surely there are better ways to do that than 'that 200-gold sword you saved for? Gone!"  Ways that don't mechanically punish the player by weakening them in further combat by destroying their best weapon, while also irritating them that they even bothered wasting their money on the weapon.

But to do so without warning, without choice?  No.  Full stop.

I agree. Again, as I mentioned in a few posts above, one of the concepts I discussed in prior pages was the option to allow the Hurlock to eat the basket of kittens if you knew it would cost you your Sword of Slaying +5. If not, and it was just Wheel-o-Punishment, I agree, it coudl be very frustrating very quickly. The idea is that you would presented with the punishment or the "bad thing" happening and would decide if being the hero would be worth it or not. 

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Would people be okay with losing gold, having equipment destroyed or just feeling like someone "pulled a fast one on you" if it resulted in some in-game good?

Yes to (1) and (2). Not sure what you mean by (3).

Betrayal by someone. Being found out you were lied to. It turning out that you've been killing villagers instead of goblins. 

That kind of thing.

Saving baskets of kittens, or proving an innocent man accused unjustly or even a piece of mind that someone did not suffer when they died.

How is that person then pulling a fast one on you, if you got what you wanted? 

Because there would be a cost. Either a plot cost, where you find a friend is not a friend, that you've been working for the wrong side, that by saving the kittens, you know the Hurlock would roam free to harm others like a basket of puppies... etc. Or there would be a gameplay cost - loss of gold, equipment, stats, etc. 

A cost. Or a surprise twist that makes you question if you've done the right thing by even taking this quest. 

I've really covered a lot of different setups and ways, so its hard to now give specifics about the whole branch. Basically, I'm just asking people's opinions on if a game tried to break out of the trend of just "get a quest/hero rushes in/saves the day/collects reward" what their feelings would be on it. I'm not petitioning or demanding it be done, just discussing its merits or possible permutations.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 février 2013 - 04:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

nightscrawl wrote...

Lol I just thought of this... I can imagine players carrying around extra gear, equipping crappy gear when they are accepting/turning in a quest, and then their normal gear for combat. Even in cinematic games, the times when the last enemy hits 0 hp and an automatic cutscene starts (during Offered and Lost) are pretty rare, as there is usually a physical checkpoint on the map you have to get to in order for a cutscene to trigger (during All That Remains), or even Enemies Among Us, which has you fight Tarohne, end combat, and then you have to actually click on Keran to proceed.

Yes, that could be a very real issue. Metagaming this could be very easily done if controls were not in place.

Then again, it could play into a concept I suggested in the Level Scaling thread that used up not actual player equipment, but a plot item that could be used in different circumstances, but only once. Like a Dragon Spark that I made up and discussed in my example of being able to cause a small cave in that would let you get through an area. 

If things like that could be used, where it would hamper your ability to solve other quests with little fallout or bad things happening, it could work.


But that is probably overlapping and fusing too many mad scientist thread ideas into one.

[nightscrawl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes, that could be a very real issue. Metagaming this could be very easily done if controls were not in place.

Then again, it could play into a concept I suggested in the Level Scaling thread that used up not actual player equipment, but a plot item that could be used in different circumstances, but only once. Like a Dragon Spark that I made up and discussed in my example of being able to cause a small cave in that would let you get through an area. 

If things like that could be used, where it would hamper your ability to solve other quests with little fallout or bad things happening, it could work.


But that is probably overlapping and fusing too many mad scientist thread ideas into one.

Heh I remember your Dragon Spark example. I like this idea too.

To me, things like stats, equipment, elemental resistance, initiative rolls, etc are all necessary components of the game, but I think having them be the focus of the story (in this case, the damaged gear the result of saving kittens), just brings to the forefront that you are playing a game instead of moving around in a world. In other words, it's too gamey.

Your above example keeps like components together (story elements with a fake 'item' that has no value beyond the story), lets the player make a risk vs reward choice, without bringing in too many game elements.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Betrayal by someone. Being found out you were lied to. It turning out that you've been killing villagers instead of goblins. 

That kind of thing.

Lots of opportunity for drama and RP goodness with these results.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 février 2013 - 04:30 .

[Medhia Nox]

Why is metagaming an issue?

If metagaming is the worst thing ever to you - then avoid it. If you have no willpower - work on that too. If you like micromanaging the perfect game - it doesn't effect anyone else.

I think what you're talking about here Jimmy is essential to the future growth of storytelling in video games.

The oldest gamers still aren't very old - nor are they very populous. As gaming society ages - the population no longer interested in very basic levels of storytelling now provided by most games - will diminish.

I think things like Kickstarter will begin a revolution in games. It might take decades - have setbacks - etc. but I believe it will start there and branch into mainstream gaming.

At least - that's my thought on it.

[FodoSatoru]

I would like an option for a quest to go wrong, but only if a player isn't paying attention. I think The Witcher 1' s main quest of act 2 is a great example - you can really screw up badly if you don't pay attention and neglect collecting information from various sources.

[nightscrawl]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Why is metagaming an issue?

If metagaming is the worst thing ever to you - then avoid it. If you have no willpower - work on that too. If you like micromanaging the perfect game - it doesn't effect anyone else.

It's not really about whether we, the players on these forums, care whether other players metagame, it's about whether the devs should design quests or other events around the possibility that players will metagame. Do they actively try to subvert that so the quest, relationship, story, plays out how they want it to and the player has a more or less natural progression? Or do they allow players to metagame, even if it harms the presentation of the story?

In the examples Jimmy has provided the quests are designed so that there is real consequence for doing or not doing something so there is a meaningful impact. In some cases if you allow the player to metagame it removes the impact. The devs have to decide whether or not that is worthwhile for them to design around. If you 'cheat' and game the system so that your lame Starter Sword is destroyed, you haven't really lost anything, so the whole purpose of the quest is subverted.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 février 2013 - 04:39 .

[AlexJK]

Metagaming should never be a design consideration. If players want to look up hints, tips, solutions or game mechanics in order to get a better outcome, well then they're welcome to do so. Aren't they? It doesn't affect anyone else.

Without introducing random elements, is it actually possible to prevent this anyway?

[nightscrawl]

AlexJK wrote...

Metagaming should never be a design consideration. If players want to look up hints, tips, solutions or game mechanics in order to get a better outcome, well then they're welcome to do so. Aren't they? It doesn't affect anyone else.

Without introducing random elements, is it actually possible to prevent this anyway?

I'm not saying it does affect anyone else. This has nothing to do with other players. It has to do with how the devs want their game to be played. I like to metagame certain things, and did so extensively in DA2, far more than I did in DAO. I don't give a fig whether other players metagame or not. But the devs might care.

Here is an example from DAO of metagaming subverting story progression. I would think that the natural inclination of most players would be to bring Alistair along for the fight with the Archdemon. You may like Alistair or think he is a whiny nug-licker, but having two Grey Wardens fighting the Archdemon is important. Depending on your other circumstances: hardended/not, romanced/not, king/not, dark ritual/not, Alistair will take the final blow and you have no choice. In those circumstances, the only way to avoid that outcome is to leave him at the gate.

[Nerevar-as]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leandra's death is something unavoidable, and arguably a quest gone wrong. Much of the criticism is simply that it cannot be avoided. Other criticism is that there's no option to try to do something about it. If those options DID exist, yet still resulted in Leandra's death, would it be more palatable in general?

Unlikely. IMHO you should have made possible to save Leandra, but have it cost something that hurts to the player. I think a choose the lesser evil scenario is more interesting than an unavoidable failure. The best example I´ve come across is Rome in Alpha Protocol, whatever you choose at the museum the consequences are going to make you feel like ****. For an option there´s even a further twist of the knife in the credits epilogue.

[AlanC9]

nightscrawl wrote...

Depending on your other circumstances: hardended/not, romanced/not, king/not, dark ritual/not, Alistair will take the final blow and you have no choice. In those circumstances, the only way to avoid that outcome is to leave him at the gate.

Well, if you've done the DR, it doesn't especially matter who strikes the final blow.

When do the other factors matter? The only case I know of is that a romanced Alistair won't let the PC die for him.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 février 2013 - 05:08 .

[nightscrawl]

AlanC9 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Depending on your other circumstances: hardended/not, romanced/not, king/not, dark ritual/not, Alistair will take the final blow and you have no choice. In those circumstances, the only way to avoid that outcome is to leave him at the gate.

Well, if you've done the DR, it doesn't especially matter who strikes the final blow.

When do the other factors matter? The only case I know of is that a romanced Alistair won't let the PC die for him.

Non-hardened, non-romance, Alistair is made king also triggers it. He basically considers it first, last, best thing he can do as the king. I know this because on my very first play I didn't know about any of that, didn't romance, didn't harden, didn't do the DR, and I did that damn fight three times picking different dialog options to try and save him.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 février 2013 - 05:23 .

[Wulfram]

nightscrawl wrote...

Non-hardened, non-romance, Alistair is made king also triggers it. He basically considers it first, last, best thing he can do as the king. I know this because on my very first play I didn't know about any of that, didn't romance, didn't harden, didn't do the DR, and I did that damn fight three times picking different dialog options to try and save him.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I've have the Warden take the final blow with unhardened unromanced King Alistair.

Had he been in a romance but then dumped the Warden after being Kinged?  Depending on the choices it's possible he's still in love and thus he'll insist on taking the blow,

[Foolsfolly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Now, I'm obviously biased (cf. my last post) but I think it's not about paranoia - it's just about frustration. Quest outcomes are scripted, instead of about skill/chance combinations like Civ games are (where the interplay between CPU/CPU/Player actions can be complex and lead to effectively stochastic outcomes).

Sid's talk was more general than just being applied to Civ games. It's the idea that the game is "out to get the player" when things happen unpredictably. I think we're discussing the same thing though, since it's the frustration of uncontrolled things happening that leads to the gamer suspicion.

I just beat Telltale's The Walking Dead game (bleeding fantastic. Although I don't think I have the emotional fortitude to replay it for some time) and in that game there were a few choices I made that bit me in the ass. I didn't think the game was out to get me for it.

What gives?

Is it the setting? The characters? The sheer amount of bleakness anyway in the game? I mean some choices I made seemed to decimate the group and others I'm entirely unaware of how my choice helped anything.

[nightscrawl]

Wulfram wrote...

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I've have the Warden take the final blow with unhardened unromanced King Alistair.

Had he been in a romance but then dumped the Warden after being Kinged?  Depending on the choices it's possible he's still in love and thus he'll insist on taking the blow,

No, on my first play I didn't romance anyone.

[AlanC9]

nightscrawl wrote...

Non-hardened, non-romance, Alistair is made king also triggers it. He basically considers it first, last, best thing he can do as the king. I know this because on my very first play I didn't know about any of that, didn't romance, didn't harden, didn't do the DR, and I did that damn fight three times picking different dialog options to try and save him.

Weird. That was the situation in my first game, and I was able to pick US.

I remember that Alistair wasn't hadened because the line that hardens Alistair was so douchey that I didn't pick it. (One of the writers apsaid that an alternative line was acccidentally cut).

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 février 2013 - 06:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Now, I'm obviously biased (cf. my last post) but I think it's not about paranoia - it's just about frustration. Quest outcomes are scripted, instead of about skill/chance combinations like Civ games are (where the interplay between CPU/CPU/Player actions can be complex and lead to effectively stochastic outcomes).


Sid's talk was more general than just being applied to Civ games. It's the idea that the game is "out to get the player" when things happen unpredictably. I think we're discussing the same thing though, since it's the frustration of uncontrolled things happening that leads to the gamer suspicion.

I just beat Telltale's The Walking Dead game (bleeding fantastic. Although I don't think I have the emotional fortitude to replay it for some time) and in that game there were a few choices I made that bit me in the ass. I didn't think the game was out to get me for it.

What gives?

Is it the setting? The characters? The sheer amount of bleakness anyway in the game? I mean some choices I made seemed to decimate the group and others I'm entirely unaware of how my choice helped anything.

This is a perfect example of bleak story-telling. Choices you make may or may not affect the overall net outcome for the TWD games, but they do have consequences and results which came back and bit you hard. And it was made all the much stronger of a story because of it. That's a prime example of more of what I'd be interested in seeing developers tackle, or at least address.

In regards to meta-gaming, it isn't just a matter of a gamer power-leveling, but it also diminishes the player's feeling of choice. When doing the Connor/Isolde choice the first time, I had not done the Circle quest, so I figured that would be a closed door to try. Upon reading more about the game, finding out that this would not have caused any issues and I could have gotten the lyrium and done the spell without any issue or negative consequence made me feel like I had been duped, that I had made the "bad" choice.

Building in-game mechanics to prevent navigating to a totally, 100% happy outcome takes the sting away from any choice. If, instead, happiness comes at a cost, ANY cost (like making it so your character isn't a power-leveled UBER demigod by the end of the game, for example), then it makes the choices you make seem that much stronger and more powerful.





Plus, EA could just sell microtransactions that remove all the negative consequences from the SP campaign. /troll

[Medhia Nox]

I think The Walking Dead's balance comes in when you have success in your main goal - even if you have setbacks on the journey.

Again - about meta-gaming - what's wrong with making a less than optimal choice? Those people who just have to have a hit of "Good work!" endorphins - the Circle option is there. For a person who wants to play with their initial impulse (I went in to the Fade to try to save him instead of the Circle) that option is there too.

Aren't we talking about negative impacts? Why should we take away the sting from making a less than optimal choice?

Sometimes - good things happen. That people ignore this - I have an opinion about - but it's not useful to the conversation. Instead - I leave it to my favorite quote by the character Melvin Udall:


Carol Connelly: OK, we all have these terrible stories to get over, and you-...

Melvin Udall: It's not true. Some of us have great stories, pretty stories that take place at lakes with boats and friends and noodle salad. Just no one in this car. But, a lot of people, that's their story. Good times, noodle salad. What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 février 2013 - 06:18 .

[erilben]

nightscrawl wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I've have the Warden take the final blow with unhardened unromanced King Alistair.

Had he been in a romance but then dumped the Warden after being Kinged?  Depending on the choices it's possible he's still in love and thus he'll insist on taking the blow,

No, on my first play I didn't romance anyone.

The only way Alistair will insist on taking the blow is if he's in love or still in love. As for trying to say you didn't romance him, well it's possible to start and end a "romance" with Alistair all in one converstation, so he  might have gotten in the "still in love" and you didn't notice.

Modifié par erilben, 10 février 2013 - 06:35 .

[Blazomancer]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Building in-game mechanics to prevent navigating to a totally, 100% happy outcome takes the sting away from any choice. If, instead, happiness comes at a cost, ANY cost (like making it so your character isn't a power-leveled UBER demigod by the end of the game, for example), then it makes the choices you make seem that much stronger and more powerful.

So you're basically saying that no matter how many times a person goes through the game, there should at least be one choice which is going to make the player regret it, because otherwise from a metagaming perspective, it is hard not to shoot for the best ending?

[Wulfram]

I think the Walking Dead very much had an expectation that the world, and thus the game, very much was out to get you.

The expectation in Dragon Age is different, because it's a different genre and a different tone.

And I wouldn't really want DA to become like Walking Dead, because although I acknowledge TWD's brilliance, it's not a game I feel able to play unless I'm already feeling pretty good.

[Fast Jimmy]

Blazomancer wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Building in-game mechanics to prevent navigating to a totally, 100% happy outcome takes the sting away from any choice. If, instead, happiness comes at a cost, ANY cost (like making it so your character isn't a power-leveled UBER demigod by the end of the game, for example), then it makes the choices you make seem that much stronger and more powerful.

So you're basically saying that no matter how many times a person goes through the game, there should at least be one choice which is going to make the player regret it, because otherwise from a metagaming perspective, it is hard not to shoot for the best ending?

I suppose I am. For the record, I'm also in support of a system that makes goals harder to accomplish or even possible to achieve, depending on the order you do them.

For instance, what if you chose to do the Brecillian Forest first in DA:O, and the Mage's Tower last? Maybe that means you can achieve the happy ending, where the werewolves are free and the Dalish are healed. But maybe that means that by the time you do the Mage's Tower, abominations are everywhere, and there are no sane Mages left, save maybe the First Enchanter, giving roughly the same ending as if you had performed the Right of Annulment. Maybe even you hear that abominations escaped from the Tower and wound up killing innocents or threatening nearby settlements. For a pro-Templar character, that wouldn't be THAT bad of an ending. For a pro-Mage, it would be pretty bad... but if you are a pro-Mage character, why would you send help to the Circle last?

ME1 tried to make it seem like this was a possibility with their CG trailer, where It showed Shepherd denying help to the Feros colony to save another area. It didn't work that way in game, of course (except for the one scene with Liara's recruitment if you waited too long), but the idea that the order you do major quests should impact how things turns out during a crisis like the Blight. Instead, the demons in the Tower wait until you show up to attack Wynne. Harrowmont and Bhelen are fighting in the streets if you go to Orzammar first or last. The werewolf curse has affected X number of elves if they had months without help or mere days.

So yes, I am of the mind that you should not be able to look at a player's guide to tell you how to get the best ending. I'm all for, instead, having the PLAYER decide what are the factors, the morals, the priorities that make them choose the ending that makes sense for them. I'd prefer it be impossible to have a "good" playthrough or a "bad" playthrough. If a player wants a character to be morally pure, they might have to define what that means for them, personally. Does it mean you believe elves shouldn't be treated poorly because of their race and help them recover their homeland? That seems like a "good" thing to do. But what it it came at the price of Mage Freedom? Or Dwarven survival? Or the Qun being spread across Thedas?

None of these questions have easy, clear cut answers. Which would make them great questions to make the player ask themselves.

[xAmilli0n]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm keen on betrayal type of stuff, but I am not sure if most are.

Depending on the level of emotional investment one ends up putting onto the particular story section, knowing it ultimately turns to betrayal and or really bad things down the line, can make people feel very, very, very jaded.

For instance, I'm totally up for the idea of having a romance (or two) character end up actually using the character and outright betraying the character. In mentioning these ideas, I have had people directly respond saying they would hate stuff like that. Even the idea of one of the romances in ME3 leading down this way was complete utter outrage for some people.

Its funny, I'm the type of person who would love this kinda of thing, and I feel it could add a HUGE amount of story potential.  Just because things end badly, or you were used/berayed, it doesn't mean make the story worse, or mean you played the game wrong.

But as you mentioned, this feels like a minority opinion, and it may leave a large part of the fanbase jaded.

I would like to see this in future games, including DA3, but I can understand if it is not the right game or franchise to introduce such a thing.