Then Bioware should not have gone open world
They haven't. Inquisition has bigger maps than most Bioware games, more freedom of movement within them, and a lot more filler content clashing with the unrelenting urgency of the main story ... but that doesn't make for an open world game. There is no "world" and no exploration or freedom to do whatever you want, just a series of disconnected maps, tiny slices that exist to tell tiny stories in the shadow of the main story.
And the point flies over the heads of a lot of people here. The OP is simply coming up with an alternate path for the story not saying they wanted their character to not do anything at all.
Cool.
Right after The KOTOR1 Character has his\her option to tell master jedis to F off, Cousland Jr remains with his\her parents and Shepard rejects his\her SPECTRE status, yeah.
No, really, OP, respecting all the potential player's choices and desires is impossible, and it had never been the other way. BGs, NWNs and many others had key plot moments that were happening no matter what. Even table-top RPGs with live GM (a person with imagination and senses, not a script) would have some sort of plot-related restrictions. It's next to impossible to GM the chaotic party where everyone does what (s)he wants.
And the point flies over the heads of a lot of people here. The OP is simply coming up with an alternate path for the story not saying they wanted their character to not do anything at all.
Not at all. The point is that such an alternate path doesn't come out of nowhere. It would cost time and money to implement, and that time and money is going to have to be taken away from somewhere else.
A character who is too selfish and/or stupid to see that joining the Inquisition -- as essentially an equal partner to the Left and Right Hand of the late Divine, no less! -- is not only the only way to save the world but also the best deal for saving their own hide as they'll ever get doesn't really "deserve" all that investment.
Not at all. The point is that such an alternate path doesn't come out of nowhere. It would cost time and money to implement, and that time and money is going to have to be taken away from somewhere else.
A character who is too selfish and/or stupid to see that joining the Inquisition -- as essentially an equal partner to the Left and Right Hand of the late Divine, no less! -- is not only the only way to save the world but also the best deal for saving their own hide as they'll ever get doesn't really "deserve" all that investment.
Yes on all counts. And it is stated in the OP that this choice would still lead back to square one. Any choice that doesn't serve to push the narrative forward is superfluous at best, wasteful at worst; resources in scripting, VA, cinematic design, etc are better spent in areas that move the narrative forward. Player choice is necessarily confined within a logical narrative structure.
Yes on all counts. And it is stated in the OP that this choice would still lead back to square one. Any choice that doesn't serve to push the narrative forward is superfluous at best, wasteful at worst; resources in scripting, VA, cinematic design, etc are better spent in areas that move the narrative forward. Player choice is necessarily confined within a logical narrative structure.
Then don't have an NPC flat out offer the choice. Far simpler. Just leave it at implied threat and move on.
Then don't have an NPC flat out offer the choice. Far simpler. Just leave it at implied threat and move on.
I see nothing wrong with the story as it is. Leliana the Spymaster says you can go, and they both make it clear why doing so would be insane and certain death. There is an art to her saying you can go; she knows you can't. Your fate is out of your hands.
I do agre that a whole new path just for not joining up is too costly.
Where the mistake is, are in the line 'You can leave if you wish'. That line should never, ever have been said, because that was never a choice to make.
What Lelianna should have said is something in the direction of:
"You are the one with power to close the rifts. If you will not aid us as an equal, we have ways of forcing you."
And then we should perhaps have gotten a star option of something like: "Fine, I have no choice."
It is still not perfect of course, but it is better than presenting a choice we could never take.
The other alternative would be to simply not give the PC the option of asking the leave-question and have the relucant option be something like "I am only joining because I am the only one who can close the Breach."
Then maybe we would have more story than just empty spaces filled with fetch quests and MMO grinding. Hell yeah for it.Not at all. The point is that such an alternate path doesn't come out of nowhere. It would cost time and money to implement, and that time and money is going to have to be taken away from somewhere else.
A character who is too selfish and/or stupid to see that joining the Inquisition -- as essentially an equal partner to the Left and Right Hand of the late Divine, no less! -- is not only the only way to save the world but also the best deal for saving their own hide as they'll ever get doesn't really "deserve" all that investment.
How is this any different than you telling Alistair you're not gonna go on a suicide mission, then being canonically forced to cave in?
At least the Inquisition gives you a reason beyond Alistair's tears.
But... but... THE PUPPY EYES! 
But... but... THE PUPPY EYES!
Then maybe we would have more story than just empty spaces filled with fetch quests and MMO grinding. Hell yeah for it.
Most of the current game with its tilted attitude towards jebus 2.0 is just too bland. A character who actively fights against his forced position is much more interesting.
Why? If you so utterly refuse to engage with a story, just don't play the game. And why should your character get away with essentially being an antagonist? Elevating player choice above all breaks down damn fast unless you actively refuse to give the NPCs the actual agency, means and power they should have to fight for and enforce their own causes and values. Most games are grotesquely ass-kissy towards us as it is, giving the player far too much power far too quickly and far too little accountability for it all.
Story-driven games like this where you're part of a greater whole and fighting for a good cause are weakened by deviating from the intended theme, not strengthened. There are other games better suited for running away from the plot, or for playing an evil bastard, or whatever. Not every game has to cater to everything a player may want to do.
DA:I isn't an open-world game. Sure the maps are big, but an Open-World game has the world open for you to do as you wish.
...We just traverse about doing inquisition stuff because AWWW YEAH INQUISITION BABY.
...though yeah, a non-stand game over would have been a funny thing to add in, albeit a waste of time to do so.
@OP You pointed one, early, lack of choices in the game among hundreds that happen through the whole story,For a game that claimed to offer choice and freedom Inquisition seems pretty much like cage.
Why? If you so utterly refuse to engage with a story, just don't play the game. And why should your character get away with essentially being an antagonist? Elevating player choice above all breaks down damn fast unless you actively refuse to give the NPCs the actual agency, means and power they should have to fight for and enforce their own causes and values. Most games are grotesquely ass-kissy towards us as it is, giving the player far too much power far too quickly and far too little accountability for it all.
Story-driven games like this where you're part of a greater whole and fighting for a good cause are weakened by deviating from the intended theme, not strengthened. There are other games better suited for running away from the plot, or for playing an evil bastard, or whatever. Not every game has to cater to everything a player may want to do.
Except that RPGs were supposed to be EXACTLY about this. RPGs are exactly the kind of game that you put players choices above all else, what you said is exactly what I've been saying for ages, you just don't realize it: Inquisition is not RPG, ia an action/adventure game with RPG elements. Play the last Tomb Raider, Last of Us or Beyond Two Souls, if you want stories, there are amazing stories there.
RPGs are supposed to be guided by players choices and offer players complex systems to build their character, Inquisition doesn't have it. Simple character building you have even in Devil May Cry and God of War. Fixed story with freedom to do whatever you want you have in GTA and Saints Row (well they are more choice driven than Inquisition to be fair).
"Nah, it was just a cruel joke because you're our property. We just pretend to give you all the power and authority, but you're nothing more than a puppet for us to manipulate as we see fit. You are a slave to the Inquisition now and forever MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
Guest_Roly Voly_*
So I think I am going to do this today:
Btw, I specifically mean "make balloon puppets." I didn't mean that to mean just any random thing. Game devs should have taken into account my desire to do precisely that. Failure to do so is, in my mind, clearly a game design flaw and I feel like I got cheated.
Balloon puppets! 
Except that RPGs were supposed to be EXACTLY about this. RPGs are exactly the kind of game that you put players choices above all else, what you said is exactly what I've been saying for ages, you just don't realize it: Inquisition is not RPG, ia an action/adventure game with RPG elements. Play the last Tomb Raider, Last of Us or Beyond Two Souls, if you want stories, there are amazing stories there.
RPGs are about playing a role. What exactly that role can be will always be restricted by the setting and the story. A good RPG demands restrictions, because the more eventualities you're forced to consider, the weaker and more shallow -- and thus ultimately more unsatisfying -- every potential path becomes. Choices without consequences are empty and pointless. This is especially true for a computer game, where everything costs money to write, record, model, skin and animate, and where you don't have a human GM to wing things for you if you wreck their predictions of what you might do. And even the most generous human GM is going to at best side-eye you heavily and at worst show you the door in short order if you try to torpedo their campaign at every turn.
In my book, one of the best RPG series ever, the first to actually deserve that name, was Ultima. It (more precisely, the "core" games 4-7) was so good and memorable in no small part because your role was so defined and restricted as the protector of that world and the literal embodiment of its Virtues, because it wasn't afraid to slap a fail state on you if you broke character and went against that role. It had a vision and stuck to it.
You don't buy a Bioware game expecting happy-go-lucky open-world freedom any more than you buy a TES game expecting heavy focus on stories and companions. Both are RPGs, but with a different focus. The term RPG is such a huge umbrella that it's really multiple genres rolled into one, not a single homogenous genre.
Leave the Inquisition makes no sense.
@OP You pointed one, early, lack of choices in the game among hundreds that happen through the whole story,For a game that claimed to offer choice and freedom Inquisition seems pretty much like cage.
Except that RPGs were supposed to be EXACTLY about this. RPGs are exactly the kind of game that you put players choices above all else, what you said is exactly what I've been saying for ages, you just don't realize it: Inquisition is not RPG, ia an action/adventure game with RPG elements. Play the last Tomb Raider, Last of Us or Beyond Two Souls, if you want stories, there are amazing stories there.
RPGs are supposed to be guided by players choices and offer players complex systems to build their character, Inquisition doesn't have it. Simple character building you have even in Devil May Cry and God of War. Fixed story with freedom to do whatever you want you have in GTA and Saints Row (well they are more choice driven than Inquisition to be fair).
I think your perspective of what an rpg is is incredibly limited. Imagine if this were a tabletop rpg and you told the GM "My character is just going to stall the story intro indefinitely. CUZ RPGS ARE ALL ABOUT GIVING ME UNLIMITED CHOICES" You wouldn't be a good roleplayer, you'd be a dick.
Except that RPGs were supposed to be EXACTLY about this. RPGs are exactly the kind of game that you put players choices above all else, what you said is exactly what I've been saying for ages, you just don't realize it: Inquisition is not RPG, ia an action/adventure game with RPG elements. Play the last Tomb Raider, Last of Us or Beyond Two Souls, if you want stories, there are amazing stories there.
RPGs are supposed to be guided by players choices and offer players complex systems to build their character, Inquisition doesn't have it. Simple character building you have even in Devil May Cry and God of War. Fixed story with freedom to do whatever you want you have in GTA and Saints Row (well they are more choice driven than Inquisition to be fair).
I think this is a pretty bad argument. RPG's, like any other genre, are restricted by resources. Wasting time implementing cinematics and voice-acting for a sequence that the vast majority of players will view as a joke does not result in an efficient use of resources.
Even from an in-game perspective, what happens? I refuse to help the Inquisition, credits roll, then I play the game again except this time I choose the option that lets me engage in the actual story being told. As someone else pointed out earlier, Bioware games are focused on the main narrative. I don't see why developers should waste resources implementing options that go against the main narrative.
Edit: It's the same basic concept behind the Jade Empire Neutral Ending or the Mass Effect 2 "Shepard dies" endings, which were both a waste of time.
I think your perspective of what an rpg is is incredibly limited. Imagine if this were a tabletop rpg and you told the GM "My character is just going to stall the story intro indefinitely. CUZ RPGS ARE ALL ABOUT GIVING ME UNLIMITED CHOICES" You wouldn't be a good roleplayer, you'd be a dick.
Yeah, your group would break down pretty fast. Not to mention, most DM's would also like you to role-player characters that can cooperate with a party, hence why good/neutral characters are typically preferred compared to say Chaotic Evil.
Edit: It's the same basic concept behind the Jade Empire Neutral Ending or the Mass Effect 2 "Shepard dies" endings, which were both a waste of time.
Do you mean the ending where you surrender to Sun Li? Holy cow, was that ever stupid. 
I still can't fathom why they put that in the game except as a troll.
Do you mean the ending where you surrender to Sun Li? Holy cow, was that ever stupid.
Yep. I mean, I laughed when I chose it as a joke, but I never thought of it as a being worth whatever resources it cost to implement.
Retour en haut