For me, the biggest part of the story is the choices involved. You are given a character and instructed to wander around the world and through the plot with it. Along the way, you are given various scenarios and are able to act in various ways in response. You get given different rewards (hopefully) and are able to continue on your merry way.
This choice is what makes Bioware games for me, since it effectively turns the story into a part of gameplay. While most games will have you following a character and his/her emotional journey, Bioware games have you become the character, since you have the ability to choose your methods, not simply watch from the aisles. (For the record, I feel the reason I didn't like DA2 as much as DAO was because it strayed too much into the former. We were left watching Hawke do his pro-mage or pro-templar thing.)
Most people here will be fans of Bioware games and the associated choice. Many people have demanded meaningful choice in DAI and Bioware, PR brilliant as always, have picked up on this, talking about meaningful choice with outcomes reflected in the world. I do agree with sentiment, having been extremely annoyed in DAO when the game completely ignored the fact I left Redcliffe to the undead. However, for me, it misses the best part of Bioware's choice system.
===>
The most important aspect of choice is the WAY we do things, not the results. It is a roleplaying game after all, and so about your character's exact actions, less so the results of said actions. This also has the advantage of taking up less resources, since what I am talking about is smaller scale and involves less coverage of all the results. There is added replay value also.
An example is in Ostagar in DAO. There was a deserter begging for food in exchange for a key. You could persuade, pay or pickpocket the guard or persuade or kill the prisoner to get the key directly. Alternatively, you could walk away or give the food and then refuse the key, with the ability tocollect the key from his dead body in Return to Ostagar. The result was key or no key, with some approval. There was an absolute magnitude of methods though, which I found absolutely brilliant.
Another example in the magi origin in DAO. You had to get paperwork for a rod of fire signed. You could go and get Enchanter Sweeney to sign with persuasion, Enchanter Leorah to sign after completing a side quest, First Enchanter Irving if you had ratted Jowan out. (Yes, I remember their names. I played that origin a lot.) You could also try to get another enchanter to sign, but he wanted an assignment. Result was always the same, but many different methods.
For me, this is what makes a true roleplaying game, makes everything more immersive and gives the world more depth.
TL;DR. Many ways of arriving to one or two simple conclusions. Not two ways of arriving at two, deep conclusions.
Modifié par DooomCookie, 31 juillet 2013 - 02:34 .
Retour en haut
