Player Choice in Dragon Age Games: Illusion versus Reality

Okay, hang on. None of what you said is vague is non-descriptive but over-generalizing and entirely dismissive, seemingly made with knowledge with what was stated (only to admit that it wasn't). I need time to find the pieces I've read or heard, but until I do I think it's unwarranted for you to state stuff like the above. That's not a good way to discuss things.
...Or has made a decision that seems to have been generally well accepted by the fandom. I heard of no big controversy over stuff like Leliana being in DAI/DA2, especially that a.) there was a precedent for her resurrection, given where she was slain or the fact that we know that being dead in DA universe doesn't mean that someone stays or is really dead and b.) Leliana is established as potentially being somewhat special to the world and future story since DAO c.) her story and role in DAI is punchier, more consequential and it capitalizes on what was established in past games really quite well.
You mean a game in which we play the same character over just 3 games that existed (we literally had to escape to another galaxy to have the 4th one), while Dragon Age happens over the wider span of time, clearly will have more chapters and contains or follows more characters? Plus... you know... DIDN'T have not-that-well-understood powers that were already established to be able to do stuff we wouldn't be able to do in ME universe?

Sorry, but you can't compare both series without also acknowledging some pretty major and significant differences between them, because - as it happens - these differences matter to the story and how it's shaped.
Only I wasn't just talking about retcons or revisions - I was talking about the whole idea that the writers should consider player choices/consequences/branching to be of utmost importance, especially in epic, multi-chapter stories. Revisions/retcons can happen entirely outside of branching or player choice.

And again - whether decisions were minor and could be avoided is a topic for a different thread and even there I don't think we could come to an agreement, because we simply aren't privy to the whole process of decisionmaking during the production of these games.
Well exactly - all I said is that it's not necessarily a point that has to be made.

I understand that on the surface it might look like I'm being dismissive of Gaider, so I should give you an example to show you I wasn't making a bad faith argument. But first let me be pedantic for a minute, words are my bag after all

The definition of "generalise" is to make a broad statement. The definition of "vague" is not focused. In specific instances they're synonyms.

Okay so in 2013 Gaider made a comment about the illusion of choice, that players never have a choice and that all choice is an illusion.

Continuing the theme of restriction, Gaider added that from the player perspective, all choice is an illusion. "The player never gets to do what they want, necessarily," he said, "They get to do what we let them." He continued: "And I think that's true for every game, so really it's all a matter of how well the illusion is maintained. We're setting up those little pieces of crumbs for them to follow, and it depends whether we're setting them in a straight line to lead them to something, or whether we put them in strategic pieces around the level, or we do what Fallout did and just fire the pieces out of a cannon. But it's all a matter of maintaining that illusion from the player, of maintaining that buy-in... The difference between good games and bad games, or good narrative and bad narrative, is how good a liar the people that make the games are.

Now here there are 2 options, either the game journalist paraphrased poorly to excuse the poor choices in DA2 or Gaider is doing it. I've seen enough comments about Gaider and "illusion of choice" that I assume it's him. If it's not then a) I apologise, and it reinforces how DONE I am with game journalism.

What's he's talking about there is the illusion of control. Not the illusion of choice. The player doesn't get to control the outcome, the studio does and the player just gets to choose between pre-determined set outcomes. To maintain that illusion the gamer gets CHOICES. Not an illusion of choice, but actual choices. A choice being having 2 or more set alternatives and being able to choose.

Now this might seem like a minor argument, but remember this interview was 2013, a bit after DA:2 which railroaded the player like no railroad has ever railroaded before. So what someone did (either the Journalist at Kotaku or Gaider) is switch a key word out. What that does is excuse the lack of choices "choices don't matter, it's only an illusion" when it should be "choices matter to MAINTAIN that illusion." So I give the benefit of the doubt to the journalist in this instance and say that Gaider is defending DA:2 by switching these words out. If I'm wrong here I'm going to be furious with Kate Cox from Kotaku. I'm sick and tired of journalists pushing agendas instead of just reporting what was said. Or just not knowing what they're reporting on. Because I assumed what she reported is accurate it reflects on me when I draw conclusions based on that and state them.

Anyway, so that's what I mean when I say that getting advice from people who don't like critique is dubious because they adjust things to defend stuff, which compromises the advice. But I guess I could have said it nicer. I was in a rush though and didn't edit my post like I usually do. Sorry.

EDIT: An illusion of choice is often used to reference what looks like a choice but actually isn't, like a choice between something or nothing. Or say you want to choose between two different brands, but both options are owned by the same company. To say that choice in gaming is an illusion is not correct, it can be but doesn't have to be. And there's numerous examples.

It's not a big controversy, I'm just stating what I don't like. You hear that criticism around depending on which crowd you hang around with. In BSN it's more about romances ... not that that's a bad thing.

In KOTOR there was a light side ending and a dark side ending. How many different endings were there in DA2?

EDIT: If this conversation is too distracting for people, ask a mod to move it. You can't curb discussion, and moving to another thread without a mod removing the previous posts just loses context. 

New thread... 

The erotic nature of calculus

Erotic? Huh? Count me out, I guess.

I thought it was funny.

This whole thing was snipped from another thread so it's not making the most amount of sense right now.

LOL gotya

NWN is a multiplayer game.

ME1 had different endings, KOTOR did, Jade Empire did, Origins did. You could argue ME2 did with different squad mates surviving. BG1 and BG2 did not, though.

Alan and I agree that NWN is pretty multiplayer focused, so it was more a statement for him. Basically while there was a single player campaign the attraction was the toolset, and the campaign was like an example of what could be done. As a single player campaign it was fairly lacklustre.

Also how old do you think we all are? XD It came out 2002  

BG1, I agree, but BG2? Definitely not, when Throne of Bhaal is included, which it should be since that is the end of the Bhaalspawn's story. You can become a god, good, neutral, or evil, leaving behind your LI and everything you knew, or you can give it all up and not become a god, good, neutral, or evil, and carry on as a mortal. Those are pretty different endings.