145 réponses à ce sujet

[TheChosenOne]

What do you talking about?

In DA:O How we can refuse to become warden.

In DA:II How we can go to any city who is not Kirkwall.

And in Mass effect how I can not care about earth.

 

By not playing the game 

[goishen]

What do you talking about?

In DA:O How we can refuse to become warden.

In DA:II How we can go to any city who is not Kirkwall.

And in Mass effect how I can not care about earth.

 

 

And here's where the "for the most part" comes in.  In these cases, you cannot choose any other things simply to advance the story.

[RoseLawliet]

What do you talking about?

In DA:O How we can refuse to become warden.

In DA:II How we can go to any city who is not Kirkwall.

And in Mass effect how I can not care about earth.

 

Those are the main events required for the game to happen. To better make your point, I'd mention the loyalty missions from ME2. You're never given the option to tell a squadmate "No, I'm not doing that" without them saying "Ok, but you should consider it." No matter what, the mission is added to your journal. Granted, you don't have to do it, but that goes for sidequests everywhere. That's why they're sidequests.

[CrutchCricket]

Having saved a single ship from Geth and blowing up a bunch of Geth heretics shouldn't really mean that suddenly certain Quarians are willing to forget decades of hate just because I made a paragon or renegade dialogue choice.

 

In either case the point is that Shep can solve too many issues by yelling at people in either blue or red.

It's not that they forget, it's that they (finally) realize how retarded it'd be for their entire race to headdesk right into the re-upgraded Geth fleet. The quarians we do see tentatively cooperate with the geth are Tali and Raan, neither of whom are militantly anti-geth at that point. No doubt that idiot Garrel will still be causing trouble, to say nothing of Xen.

 

The fault of "happily ever after" in this case, isn't the red or blue shouting it's the ending slides. But then we're getting into the ending where there is no good, only suck.

 

I would agree that it'd be nice to pull a fast one and have one or two instances where red/blue shouting doesn't go the way you want it to, but I don't think it's as big an issue as some people do, nor do I advocate for as big an over-correction.

 

And in Mass effect how I can not care about earth.

By not being from there?

 

Or so it would be, if not for the atrocious autodialogue.

[Quarian Master Race]

The issue is that the Geth-Quarian story is stupid from the start in ME3. We can't focus on the microcosm of stupid (suddenly the Quarians are totally cool with not wholesale exterminating the Geth). 

That was never really the goal of all of them anyway, albiet it was definitely the goal of the majority.

The only reason the quarians are "okay" with not exterminating the "geth" (as if those individualized Reaper mech things actually bear any similarity to the former) is because the latter's co-opting of Reaper technology suddenly makes it impossible, and that most of them would rather not die pointlessly (provided anyone bothers to inform them of the re-upload after they destroy the Reaper). You'll note there isn't an option to get the quarians to relent without giving the "geth" access to the means to subjugate or exterminate their creators, not even redspeak (which should have been an option along with forcibly controlling the geth,  given that was Xen's motive for starting the conflict in the first place, but W/e). You essentially have to trick the quarians into an unwinnable situation and hold the threat of extermination over them to get them to play nice.
 

 

without appreciating the macrocosm of stupid (the Quarians, for barely cogent reasons, decide that the technically possible but really unknowable invasion of the reapers requires to implement a strategy that will make it far more likely their entire population will be exterminated by the reapers). 

because packing 100% of your population into the holds of your fleet then sending into battle as essentially cannon fodder against a far superior foe (Reapers) who will almost certainly destroy most of them is a great idea. Hell, all the Reapers have to do is destroy 1 of the 3 liveships and that's a 3rd of your population starved to death, nevermind all 3. Indeed, if you chose to exterminate the quarians, this type of countervalue warfare in exploiting the weaknesses of the quarians' living conditions is precisely the strategy used by the geth according to the "Reaper War" codex description of the battle you get (i.e. they essentially ignore the military and prioritize the liveships).

Rannoch isn't a guarantee for safety, but spreading your civilians out across it and giving them the means to produce their own food it is much more defensible for a greater period of time than attempting to protect a few slow, unwieldy liveships from destruction. The quarian civilian population is comparatively tiny, and of a far lower threat level than the actual ships they inhabit. There's no real reason for the Reapers to target and attempt to harvest them in the interim, as they wouldn't provide many troops. Not only that, it means you can now feasibly use those ships both offensively (they have big guns that can kill Reapers provided you are nonplussed about exposing them to danger or even losing them), and the Civilian Fleet at large as a logistics/strategic resource (because with no civilians and their living infrastructure crowding up the cargo holds, you can fill them with something useful like troops and supplies).

Albiet this is all OT to the thread topic. Regardless of opinions of the ingame conflict, the broader point in this instance is that the player should have had little to no input into the actual final decision at Rannoch, rather than the two sides grabbing the idiot ball and preferring to essentially kill themselves rather than countermand the God PC's decision on what happens to their species, or even so much as force an interrupt for you to get what outcome you want like Mordin can (no Legion/ Geth VI's retarded attempt to "resist" by giving Shepard a bond villian monologue with an armed enemy combatant behind it, and predictably getting shanked/blasted, is hardly any less utterly stupid than Tali pouting and going for a swim instead of actually doing something about it, or worse Raan not even bothering to call Gerrel, then pointing her gun at herself rather than the defenseless toaster uploading the Reaper code in front of her). 

Ideally, the conditions to acquire that ceasefire outcome would have been based upon you playing a bit of politics and stacking the Admiralty Board more in your favour by getting (a sympathetic to the geth version of) Tali a spot, helping Koris in his ambitions and persuading Raan into their camp. Tali, Koris and Raan should have been the one giving that speech to their people, not sitting there like patsies waiting for some alien to do it (or not do it, given they will just sit there like morons while the Code is uploaded not even bothering to tell Gerrel that he and everyone else are about to die horribly if they keep attacking unless you do first). On the other side, keeping the Heretics around should have made it straight up impossible to get cooperation were it not for Bioware's typical unwillingness to ever punish "paragon" players. Would be funny for Parashep who trusted the geth and rewrote them to give that feely speech about everyone getting along and singing kumbaya, only for it to backfire and the mostly unsympathetic geth consensus to decide toss the quarians in the gas chamber anyway. Or have them do something like go back over to the Reapers (whether via their own volition or via getting hacked) at the Battle of Earth, similar to what the Reaperized Rachni queen does and like Allers suggests in the post Rannoch interview on the geth.

Alternatively, there should have also been an option to do the opposite, support Xen in her ambitions of control, dissalow the Reaper code upgrade thus leaving the geth at the mercy of the quarians (rather than the other way around), and convince Gerrel of the military utility of acquiring an army of expendable combat drones/mechs as the "Renegade" means of acquiring support from both factions, rather than just a redspeak option that says and does the exact same thing as the blue one. This could have its own benefits (easier to achieve, safer) and downsides (like the standard geth not being as useful in terms of War Assets as the Reaperized ones).

[Quarian Master Race]

It's not that they forget, it's that they (finally) realize how retarded it'd be for their entire race to headdesk right into the re-upgraded Geth fleet. 

and mind you, they only know of this because the PC is seemingly the only person in the quadrant who is capable of informing them of this particular development. I don't expect the geth to care all that much, but the Quarian Admiral on the ground grabs the idiot ball and just stands there like a retard when the geth tries to upload, unless of course you give them permission to do something via grabbing your own idiot ball and getting punked by the geth, wherin Admiral useless suddenly grows some sense. Hell, even Garrus/Liara/James/Javik/Ash/Kaidan standing 50 feet away looking at the pretty sunset probably could have taken their thumb out of their 4th point of contact and said something over an open channel about the Reaper code coming back online, but because muh choices matter, only the player has the ability to use the power of bluespeech and a radio to relay utterly basic tactical information to their allies in orbit.

[Commander Rpg]

I would literally stop buying Bioware games and look elsewhere if they did that.

So ME3, DA:I and EA(Bio)ware politics aren't enough, huh?

[CrutchCricket]

On the other side, keeping the Heretics around should have made it straight up impossible to get cooperation were it not for Bioware's typical unwillingness to ever punish "paragon" players. Would be funny for Parashep who trusted the geth and rewrote them to give that feely speech about everyone getting along and singing kumbaya, only for it to backfire and the mostly unsympathetic geth consensus to decide toss the quarians in the gas chamber anyway. Or have them do something like go back over to the Reapers (whether via their own volition or via getting hacked) at the Battle of Earth, similar to what the Reaperized Rachni queen does and like Allers suggests in the post Rannoch interview on the geth.

Yeah, **** that. Keeping the Heretics is objectively the right decision. Given that they're the ones that've been giving you **** the entire series, their worth on the battlefield is without question. You've brought them in line with the main geth consensus, making the geth stronger, again a good thing, given they've unilaterally pledged themselves to you to stop the Reapers. Hell if Shepard himself wasn't an almighty idiot, he could've forced the rest of the galaxy into preparing/joining him with the geth alone, instead of twiddling his thumbs in the brig for six months because "durr batarians!". If you also spared the rachni queen and Wrex is your bro you don't even need the special snowflake asari or the salarians. Council or batarians giving you ****? They couldn't do dick to stop even one of the races at your side and you have all three.

 

But I digress. With stronger geth you still have the leverage to stop the quarians from going full retard just like with the Reaper codes. The geth won't turn on you if you continually support them since betrayal is not in their nature. You can and should force cooperation, at least while the Reapers are a threat. Afterwards it doesn't matter- if they destroy themselves, so be it. Who are you to oppose natural selection? Yeah you'd be a hypocrite if you wax philosophical on everyone having a right to live and choose for themselves, but then again, the entire galaxy is at stake. Nothing is sacred or too costly to survive.

 

Bottom line, it's dumb that keeping the heretics counts against peace, particularly given how they wrote the quarians in ME3.

[Laughing_Man]

If you also spared the rachni queen and Wrex is your bro you don't even need the special snowflake asari or the salarians. Council or batarians giving you ****? They couldn't do dick to stop even one of the races at your side and you have all three.

 

Wrex the Bro cares very little about anything other than curing the Genophage, and the Rachni queen was saved only to become the Reaper's biatch yet again in ME3, because of the respect for player's choices...

(I mean if anyone had a chance to resist indoctrination, it is a telepathic hive-mind species with genetic memories that already knows what the indoctrination is like.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

The argument isn't to make the protagonist a complete bystander, but find a more reasonable balance between agent and influencer. I liked this quote specifically: “You don’t get to lead the revolution if you’re not the one being oppressed.”

If I'm the best person to lead it, why not?

Look, I have no objection to NPCs having their own agendas, amd even pursuing them on their own. But we shouldn't be powerless in this. But we should get control over our character's part in it, including refusing to take part.

Don't make us participate in someone else's fight.

[Medhia_Nox]

If I'm the best person to lead it, why not?

Look, I have no objection to NPCs having their own agendas, amd even pursuing them on their own. But we shouldn't be powerless in this. But we should get control over our character's part in it, including refusing to take part.

Don't make us participate in someone else's fight.

 

It would be great to allow NPCs to solve their own problems... but, the more you do this, the less relevance your characters should have to the particular NPCs.

 

I would love to see NPCs oppose my character... even form their own elite groups.  Garrus is made to be a total failure just so he can be Shepard's lackey all over again.  He should have moved on and stayed Archangel and either be law abiding or rebellious depending on your conversations in ME. 

 

NPCs should be controlled completely by the writers - just like NPCs are controlled completely by the DM.  

 

The world should not be waiting around for the player - nor should the NPCs.  When it's done reasonably... it's fine, and you don't notice it as much - but then there's other times when you're made to feel like it's urgent... when it clearly isn't... that breaks immersion.

 

The Main Protagonist is the worst character ever... self-absorbed know-it-all special snowflake power fantasy... 

 

I want to feel like I'm in a party with equals... or much closer to equals... not a bunch of incompetent sycophants that can't take a ****** without me there to hold it for them.  

[Master Warder Z_]

It would be great to allow NPCs to solve their own problems... but, the more you do this, the less relevance your characters should have to the particular NPCs.

 

I would love to see NPCs oppose my character... even form their own elite groups.  Garrus is made to be a total failure just so he can be Shepard's lackey all over again.  He should have moved on and stayed Archangel and either be law abiding or rebellious depending on your conversations in ME. 

 

NPCs should be controlled completely by the writers - just like NPCs are controlled completely by the DM.  

 

The world should not be waiting around for the player - nor should the NPCs.  When it's done reasonably... it's fine, and you don't notice it as much - but then there's other times when you're made to feel like it's urgent... when it clearly isn't... that breaks immersion.

 

The Main Protagonist is the worst character ever... self-absorbed know-it-all special snowflake power fantasy... 

 

I want to feel like I'm in a party with equals... or much closer to equals... not a bunch of incompetent sycophants that can't take a ****** without me there to hold it for them.  

 

The Strategy RPG Gihren's Greed does this well, it places you in command of a state, you control the resources, technology and growth of the military and economy of that group. You determine what units are produced, how to react in certain scenario and what sort of morality the state will be through your own decisions, but the rest is pure reactivity, admittedly a event driven game like this does that sort of thing well, where you are reliant upon predetermined events to gain extra units, money and resources and what have you, but it serves as a good model for where even if you command a nation, you are reliant upon others for success.

 

For example in the Principality of Zeon campaign, if you take certain actions and then fail to follow up on those actions, you can be assassinated, it will be game over off the bat, no matter how well the war itself is going, you will eat a bullet.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It would be great to allow NPCs to solve their own problems... but, the more you do this, the less relevance your characters should have to the particular NPCs.

Fine by me. If I cared about what they were doing, I'd help them (or oppose them).

NPCs should be controlled completely by the writers - just like NPCs are controlled completely by the DM.

Only if the player's character is completely controlled by the player. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Mdizzletr0n]

Goshen, I'm not sure what you mean by not being "lolpowerful,' or referring to MGS5 (what's that?).

I wouldn't want to be omnipotent, if that's what you mean by being "powerful." Playing through (recovering from) some setbacks adds to a more balanced realism. Shepard being unable to defeat Kai Leng at the Temple of Athame on Thessia, and then later gets his revenge on Kai Leng on Chronos Station for what he did to "Thane and Miranda/Kirrahe," has a greater sense of victory that simply being so powerful that Kai Leng couldn't survive their first encounter. I hope I have not misunderstood your point about "feeling powerful."

This would've had more weight if Kai Leng was actually unbeatable in that first encounter. As opposed to beating him and then cut scene of a loss.

[Quarian Master Race]

Yeah, **** that. Keeping the Heretics is objectively the right decision. 

Feel free to be wrong. I suppose you could make that argument at the time, but "objectively" (with headcanon knowledge) it just results in a lot more dead organics (not just quarians, mind you, given that the Reaper allied geth fight on other fronts too and you're increasing their numbers) for no extra overall military strength or absolute gain at all, and makes winning against the Reapers just that little bit harder, albiet not so much that it really matters provided you build up enough boy scout points and make sure talking toaster and purple suit rat become best buddies, because they're the only quarian and geth in existence whose opinions on their own damn conflict actually matter a little bit (but still not nearly as much as yours) anyway.
 

Yeah, **** that. Keeping the Heretics is objectively the right decision. Given that they're the ones that've been giving you **** the entire series, their worth on the battlefield is without question. You've brought them in line with the main geth consensus, making the geth stronger, again a good thing, given they've unilaterally pledged themselves to you to stop the Reapers. 

I'd question that given that their "contribution" between ME2 and 3 amounts to focussing primarily on building a literal idiot ball right in the middle of the Quarian home system, which serves no purpose in the fight against the Reapers and would have been a prime target for the latter to inflict huge damage upon the Consensus even if the Quarians hadn't reached and already blown it up it a scant couple of weeks before the Reapers get there.

Still, they're better than the Council in that they at least (ostensibly) acknowledge the Reaper threat and pledge support before not doing all that much about it, so there's that.

Subjectively, I think it is a bit too trusting given what we know of the geth history at this point (i.e. indiscriminately shooting organics for 3 centuries straight) to immediately conclude we are aware of geth motives. We know literally 1 geth, or erm 1183 runtimes or whatever, and it doesn't end up being exactly honest.

 

 Hell if Shepard himself wasn't an almighty idiot, he could've forced the rest of the galaxy into preparing/joining him with the geth alone, instead of twiddling his thumbs in the brig for six months because "durr batarians!". If you also spared the rachni queen and Wrex is your bro you don't even need the special snowflake asari or the salarians. Council or batarians giving you ****? They couldn't do dick to stop even one of the races at your side and you have all three.

Given that it only takes the quarians to smash the geth's virtual asses into actual dust until the Reapers show up to "save" them (via essentially killing them with the Pinnochiocode), you'd also have to make sure that either they are on board with this or that Rael'Zorah and Xen are incapable of doing their research somehow (apparently not even letting the Alarei get blown to bits is enough to stop them given you can ignore the mission and the result on the broader quarian-geth power balance is essentially the same). The krogan wouldn't be able to help you here, because they're actually pretty weak on their own given they don't have a fleet, and the geth one isn't really equipped to help them in that regard even if the quarians don't have the means to render it a nonfactor. Any Council race or the quarians could simply glass Tuchanka if you tried to threaten them with the krogan, assuming they didn't just laugh you away.

I don't know about the Rachni, they're still building their army/fleet at this point so their relative threat level could be anywhere. The Reapers seem to deal with them without much issue, but then again the fact that they bothered to focus on them could indicate perceiving them as a threat (though given that they attack the lolBatarians first, this probably isn't the primary reasoning).

 

But I digress. With stronger geth you still have the leverage to stop the quarians from going full retard just like with the Reaper codes. The geth won't turn on you if you continually support them since betrayal is not in their nature. You can and should force cooperation, at least while the Reapers are a threat. Afterwards it doesn't matter- if they destroy themselves, so be it. Who are you to oppose natural selection? Yeah you'd be a hypocrite if you wax philosophical on everyone having a right to live and choose for themselves, but then again, the entire galaxy is at stake. Nothing is sacred or too costly to survive.

It admittedly makes little sense the way it is presented, but I always viewed the Heretic presence as more not helping the geth's side of the whole trust issue. You can activate Legion, get Tali to be sympathetic to it and get her a spot on the Admiralty to push her toaster hugger coexistence ideology with Koris, and the geth will still hunt the quarians to extinction if actual Legion's not around/ never delivered its memories to the consensus because Collector Base as a similar example

Their part of the blame for the conflict was entirely whitewashed in ME3. I quite liked Legion's matter of fact answer to Koris about them also not remotely trusting the quarians to ever play nice, before the geth got turned into frolicking peace loving pinnochios who just wanted their mean parents to love them for what they are or whatever. It fits with how the geth are described to have treated post Morning War peace envoys in Revelation (i.e. killing them without even trying to establish contact).
https://www.youtube....8y2mHiw#t=2m11s

Betrayal not in their nature? I guess Legion unprovokedly attempting espionage against an erstwhile ally in ME2 was just my imagination. So was them siding with the Reapers against the rest of the galaxy in ME3, for that matter. I don't care about their excuses. It's categorically a betrayal when there were clearly other options that didn't involve assisting the harvest (like fleeing Rannoch at virtually no loss to themselves and giving the quarians what they want/need).

 

I'm very much focussed on the afterword. Helping them "Eliminate the competition" as Javik so succinctly put it, so the Reaperized "geth" can become the new galactic overlords isn't my objective. I really couldn't care less what sort of toasters are attempting to kill or enslave me, really, if they're both capable of doing so. Admittedly, in the short term this must be weighed against Reapers being the much greater threat of the two, and acquiring geth help being a necessary Faustian bargain to ensure success despite the risks. Of course, the Crucible renders them a non issue, but we don't know how it works at the time.

Dunno what you're talking about with natural selection. Toasters acquiring some code upgrades they aren't responsible for and killing meatbags with them is "natural"? Or is the "natural" manner of things other way round given that the meatbags are the ones killing the toasters without said code being endowed from the god machines. Does this even apply at all given there is absolutely nothing "natural" about how sapient species evolve and develop their technologies in the bounds of the Reaper experiment?

I don't care about liberal garbage "right to choose for themselves" or whatever at all, at least not as an inalienable absolute, and if I did I'd probably pick refuse anyway, because I obviously would care about my moral hangups over everyone being goddamn killed.
 

[RoboticWater]

If I'm the best person to lead it, why not?

Look, I have no objection to NPCs having their own agendas, amd even pursuing them on their own. But we shouldn't be powerless in this. But we should get control over our character's part in it, including refusing to take part.

Don't make us participate in someone else's fight.

If we're the best person to lead, then certainly. However, nearly every BioWare game thus far has had sub-plots that are rooted in deeply cultural matters which don't necessarily relate to the PC. That Shepard has the final word in the Geth/Quarian conflict makes little sense no matter how closely he or she has worked with the Quarians before. The same goes for random personal matters like parental disputes.

 

We'll ultimately have to participate in someone else's fight (even if it's a fight imposed exclusively on our character). That's a fact inherent to story-driven RPG; however, there are things BioWare can do to make how we participate more variable (even if it is merely superficial).

 

I would have thought you of all people would be pleased with my suggestion, as constructing scenarios where our character is less capable of affecting change would allow for more roleplaying opportunities without the need for BIoWare to worry about reactivity.

[KaiserShep]

I dunno. Overall I rather liked how the Get/Quarian decision was set up. The only one that's questionable to me is picking the geth, because Tali is far too passive, but at least if you pick the Quarians, Legion/Geth VI actually attack, leading to its death and the quarians do the rest. And for the peace option, it's more a matter of having enough voices that are already in favor of it, with Gerrel really being the one you have to outweigh. 

[Hazegurl]

I think that like in other areas, the answer is very simple: Strive for a measure of realism.

 

When it comes to an important decision or the ability to influence something, ask yourself, does it makes sense that the PC should be able to do this?...

 

One thing is for certain, I wouldn't want to see a walking failure of a bystander as the PC as the answer to this dilemma.

 

Simply find a balance that makes common sense.

This is how I feel. A balance would make much better sense than being reduced to cheerleader. I love how Anders does whatever he wants in DA2, what I don't like is not having the power to do anything about it.  Granted, we can tell on him and it's dismissed.  However, the dialogue they give Hawke is so stupid and vague.  I would have liked it better if Anders had to outsmart a suspicious Hawke just to accomplish his goal.

 

Even if Anders is successful in blowing up the Chantry due to him out smarting Hawke, at least I didn't sit on my butt keeping silent about the bomb for...reasons.  Especially since Anders wasn't even my friend in game. My Hawke cut him loose after he almost killed that girl.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If we're the best person to lead, then certainly. However, nearly every BioWare game thus far has had sub-plots that are rooted in deeply cultural matters which don't necessarily relate to the PC. That Shepard has the final word in the Geth/Quarian conflict makes little sense no matter how closely he or she has worked with the Quarians before. The same goes for random personal matters like parental disputes.

No argument there.

We'll ultimately have to participate in someone else's fight (even if it's a fight imposed exclusively on our character). That's a fact inherent to story-driven RPG; however, there are things BioWare can do to make how we participate more variable (even if it is merely superficial).

I don't accept that. If we don't participate, that just renders the quest part of the setting's background text, and a more credible portion as well.

As irritating as it is when we can't intervene in a plot when we'd like to (Anders), it's just as irritating when we have to take part in a plot in which we have zero interest (Javaris).

You talk about a story-driven RPG, but that story should be character-driven, and the relevant character is the player character.

Every person is the protagonist of his own story.

I would have thought you of all people would be pleased with my suggestion, as constructing scenarios where our character is less capable of affecting change would allow for more roleplaying opportunities without the need for BIoWare to worry about reactivity.

If it allows for more roleplaying, sure. But being roped into quests is the sort of loss of agency I'm specifically trying to avoid.

[Sanunes]

I dunno. Overall I rather liked how the Get/Quarian decision was set up. The only one that's questionable to me is picking the geth, because Tali is far too passive, but at least if you pick the Quarians, Legion/Geth VI actually attack, leading to its death and the quarians do the rest. And for the peace option, it's more a matter of having enough voices that are already in favor of it, with Gerrel really being the one you have to outweigh. 

 

That also worked with the decisions we made in Mass Effect 2 and those decisions made an impact on both parties to help influence the outcome.

[In Exile]

The premise isn't entirely pointless. For one, the plot premise starts centered around the dubious relevance of the Inquisition, but I'd argue that Trespasser, from the player's perspective, is more about why Solas did what he did than anything else. However, I'll admit that the dramatic irony wasn't exceptionally implemented.

Trespasser suffers from a lot of serious structural problems. I don't want to derail the thread. But, the essence of it, is that it introduces a series of conflicts with no context or build up that are entirely unique to the DLC, spends a substantial amount of time stretching out a revelation already spelled out, and buries the revelations as to why Solas did what he did to tidbits discovered through careful exploration (the morals) or an exposition conversation.  

[RoboticWater]

I don't accept that. If we don't participate, that just renders the quest part of the setting's background text, and a more credible portion as well.

As irritating as it is when we can't intervene in a plot when we'd like to (Anders), it's just as irritating when we have to take part in a plot in which we have zero interest (Javaris).

You talk about a story-driven RPG, but that story should be character-driven, and the relevant character is the player character.

Every person is the protagonist of his own story.

The reality is that the story will always be, for the most part, BioWare's story. Their games will never be the pure simulation you want; however, this doesn't mean BioWare couldn't try to accommodate your roleplaying wishes some other way. The compromise here, because there will always need to be one, is that every required quest keeps the player constrained more to an influencing role than an iconic one so that BioWare can accommodate more character choices without needing to worry about reactivity. 

 

If it allows for more roleplaying, sure. But being roped into quests is the sort of loss of agency I'm specifically trying to avoid.

Assuming I'm correct that BioWare won't drop a required main quest (which, given the way they've handled their more recent games, is likely a fair assumption), then there may at least be a chance that BioWare could simulate skipping quests. If our roles are mitigated, then those who didn't want to go on the quest in the first place may be able to act less interested and allow a more important figure to do all the talking (maybe even most of the doing), while more engaged characters can provide more of their own input.

 

Trespasser suffers from a lot of serious structural problems. I don't want to derail the thread. But, the essence of it, is that it introduces a series of conflicts with no context or build up that are entirely unique to the DLC, spends a substantial amount of time stretching out a revelation already spelled out, and buries the revelations as to why Solas did what he did to tidbits discovered through careful exploration (the morals) or an exposition conversation.  

While I still enjoy Trespasser for its character moments, I can agree with your assessment of its plot. In my mind, Trespasser is stuck in an unfortunate limbo between DA:I and DA:4, trying desperately to tie up its predecessor's loose ends and dangle the next game's plot in front of our faces all while trying to have a story of its own. Its plot would have probably benefited from being DA:I's final act, in my opinion.

[ZipZap2000]

No, I think that was another thread.

Why are you allowed to say it? They give me warning points and remove the post......you humans really are all racist.

[Dabrikishaw]

I mostly agree, but didn't care for the DA2 example given in the article.

 

What made Anders so frustrating for me is that I knew he was building a bomb once the main ingredient was revealed, but Hawke was powerless to stop it. I may have liked it if he was more clever in pulling off his plot and Hawke wasn't reduced to being a bumbling patsy.

Petrice from that same game had the same issue. You couldn't deal with her at the end of the first act because she had plot armor.

[Khrystyn]

Blah, blah, blah.... Quarians...Blah, blah...Geth...blah

 

QMR - even if every comment you made in reply to Crutch Cricket is true, you did not relate it to what you'd like to see different in Andromeda in regards to the OPs thread. Your comments above are better served in the ME-3 forum. Would you be willing to make a constructive comment relating your dearly held views about the Geth and the Quarians as they relate to something you'd like to see handled differently in Andromeda? I'm not trying to blast you...that's not my style.

 

You, and the others talking about DA are getting way off topic here when there's no relevance mentioned to the purpose of the thread.  Please make your case for either giving NPCs more control, or why you are against it, or how you would handle it better, and offer examples that support your thesis for Andromeda.