To be fair, a lot of those things do restrict choice. It's just that restricting choice is not a bad thing. Often it can add depth. Sometimes, in terms of combat, as I described earlier, it even effectively gives you choice due to the removed option being the no-brainer correct option. Other times, restricting or removeing the player's choice makes for a more realistic and immersive - limiting what races/sexes companions are willing to romance makes them far more believable people than DA2's Hawke-sexual lot. Putting the player in a position where they can't chose can again make the world more believable, as it demonstrates that this isn't some power fanatsy where everythign you want happens, but a realistic world where things occur beyond your control - you're not playing a god, you're paying a character (e.g. the sibling's death at the beginning of DA2)?
The idea that more choices is always good is one of the most bizzare and illogical ones I've come across when it comes to RPGs, yet it seems remarkably prevalent here.
Ironically perpetuating a system around the mechanic of healing damage also removes choice because I have to be either very, very good at the game or I have to have a healer in my party, even if i don't want one. I never liked Anders and always begrudged dragging the whiner around me. Wynne i quite liked but I'd prefer to have others in the party, yet again I felt obliged to do so.
For me this approach increases choice rather than restricts it. I do feel sorry for those that play healers but I think the other support options may be just as satisfying.
I did enjot





Retour en haut





