Player Choice in Dragon Age Games: Illusion versus Reality

That's just it:  the stories are only "connected" in that they take place in the same setting.

The only real connection between Hawke and the Warden is the Fifth Blight.  We don't need an endless parade of people to walk by and go "oh, yeah, I knew the Warden!" for no other reason than to show us that THIS IS A SEQUEL TO THAT OTHER GAME!  Similarly, Choice that affect the next game are destined to be minor, even trivial in effect, because they have to account for a different choice being made.  For example, it doesn't matter in DAI if you sided with Larius or Janeka in Legacy.  Or even if you played the DLC at all.Nor does it matter if Hawke sided with the Wardens or the mages (aside from a few lines of exposition), or the fate of Redcliffe in DAO.  It doesn't matter if Bhelen or Harrowmont become king, It doesn't matter if Alistair is king alone, king with Anora, king with the Warden, a Grey Warden himself, a drunk, or dead (executed or perished in the Fade)

And in the future, I seriously doubt if it will matter who is Divine, whether you recruited/conscripted the Templars/Mages, whether Cole became more human or spirit, who rules Orlais, whether the Inquisition gets rolled into the Chantry or disbands,etc.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is doomed to disappointment, because other choices have to be accounted for.  You simply can't change the world-state that much or else the baggage that gets carried over will be too much to tell coherent stories going forward.  

Look at Mass Effect.  The trilogy was supposed to be an ongoing story, but each game ditched or trivialized all the major choices.  And we were playing the same character all three games!

They ARE relevant and they are still part of the story (even if our choices are pushed aside, the story naturally flows from one main protagonist to another, their existence and actions undeniably there in the larger scheme of things) - even if people wish some of them were more and some less.

Plus, we know that they CAN be relevant because the story is not over yet. We have no idea what it's going to culminate as - all we know that it has an effect on how they write and shape their story.

That is... pretty much entirely untrue. Even if the story doesn't pay much heed to each of our individual choices in each game you CAN'T have DA2 without our protagonist's actions in DAO (HoF stops the Blight!) and you CAN'T have DAI without protagonists actions in DA2 (Hawke brings red lyrium to surface and takes part in releasing Corypheus + all the mage rebellion start)

They are intrinsically connected - to the point that we're either working with people who knew them (Warden) or directly with them (Hawke in DAI) and the story flows from what they experienced, encountered or done.

If you want to discuss how connected, story-wise, chapters are between themselves you can't confuse flavor stuff with actual characters presence in the story. It doesn't matter whether Hawke sided with Larius and Janeka, but it does matter that he/she has released Corypheus at some point (whether somebody played the DLC or not).

And there are different levels of consequences of each individual flavor choice you mentioned... I mean, are you serious in comparing how much does, say, Larius and Janeka decision with whether Alistair is Warden or King, when one of them can result with character's death?

Also - how do you know what will or will not matter in the future? For example, in DA2 it totally didn't matter whether there was OGB or not - it's only in DAI that we see that it has different results and have no idea if there'd be further branching. I don't expect totally different or special endings or anything, I'm not the sort of person who is prone to unrealistic expectations - but since DA is still an ongoing story that builds on past chapters we can't say how much impact certain decisions (or the cumulative result of these decisions) will have in the future. And that's part of fun of waiting for the next chapter for me, btw. Will it matter? How will they tie this stuff up? In a story this massive and inter-connected, even acknowledging past events merits to something.

That's how it is with stories that continue past one chapter. BW clearly wants to tell such stories in ME and DA universes (even if one is story focused on a certain character while another is a story of the world through eyes of multiple protagonists) - you may not like it, which is entirely fair, but this is what they set out to do.

That these things happen do matter but it isn't imortant that your protag did them or some other unknown person. All that's important in your example is that SOME WARDEN stopped the blight so that Hawkers family story went the way it did. The fact that DA2 occurs the same way regardless of player choice in DAO means that the connection is neither intrinsic nor direct. And since what has happened in each game has had minimal impact.on the following ones, I don't expect that to be something Bioware starts now.

Then why were there so many complaints that the Hawke of DAI didn't act like the Hawke that people played in DA2?

Sure the Blight spurs Hawke to action in DA2. But how the Warden stops the Blight is irrelevant. Ultimate Sacrifice, Alistair taking the shot, Loghain, or the Dark Ritual, it doesn't matter. I'm actually quite impressed with the scenes done in DAI if you did the Dark Ritual. But even that has been rendered irrelevant. Saying that we can't have DA2 without an action that all players take (stopping the archdemon) is kinda cheating, since it's the CHOICES that we are talking about here.



No, it doesn't. Even if you didn't play the DLC, Hawke (and Varric) released Corypheus. The choice doesn't matter.


They're all examples of choices. Larius wanted to destroy Corypheus, Janeka to bind him. Neither choice matters.



Because after three games, and another series (Mass Effect) that also dos save imports, I can see the pattern emerging. Like I said before, I was impressed at seing some genuinely different scenes if the OGB is around. But even then, it's clear that those scenes are as far as it will go.

Branching CAN'T go too far, or the outcomes will become so wildly divergent that making a coherent story will be impossible.
[/quote]

If they can't manage it focusing on a single character, what makes you think they can manage with with an entire continent?

You are still confusing things. The fact that Hawke 'doesn't act like the Hawke people played' doesn't negate the fact that Hawke is still there. All the major beats of their story happened; he/she exists in the story and is intrinsic to a point where we can directly interact with them.

The issue of Hawke not acting like Hawke people played is separate from their actions/presence in the story having a direct impact on future events - it's a matter of execution rather than story flow and structure.
You say that it's the choices what we are talking here, yet you're still trying to make a case as if overall story is not connected at all with one another aside from the world in which is set, while these are two different things.

Also - it's pretty interesting that you keep focusing on whether it matters how Warden has stopped the Blight, when we know that it has one serious consequence: namely, which Warden we meet and take to the Fade with us to ultimately decide their fate.

How is this irrelevant? Even if you wished for the choice to have more impact, the fact is that we have a whole slew of branching choices that - just like OGB - have only revealed their relevance to events in 3rd chapter while overstepping the 2nd one. The precedent has been set then. We just don't know how and when each choice (or cumulations of choices) will impact any future events (we have no idea whether or how the OGB plot - or maybe even Warden/Hawke in the Fade plot - will play out in the future).

Again with the confusion... the choice of Larius/Janeka may not matter - what matters is that Hawke has ultimately contributed to releasing Corypheus thus setting the stage for the next chapter. 
I'm not exactly sure why are you so insistent on focusing on Larius/Janeka thing not being relevant when the fact that Larius wanted to destroy Cory and Janeka bind him was rendered irrelevant at the end of the DLC?

I only gave it as an example and that you can't treat all the choices the same way. Some choices are meatier or more consequential than others, that was my point.
Well of course, that's just the nature of the games they're making and will likely be so unless the reality of game development shifts to something else.

I'd like to point out that the medium is still young and there are not that many stories on the market that are attempting to make what DA (or ME) is trying to do in terms of enormous multi-chapter RPGs with branching choices. The devs have the right to experiment and not always get things right or satisfactory for some people - the idea/hope is that with each chapter (or new franchises in which they try new approaches, like Anthem) they'll learn important lessons and thus become better at it, plus hopefully the technology gets streamlined and will allow for more and more things.

They've already iterated that - I can't tell just how happy I am that they've invented Dragon Age Keep. The idea that I don't have to replay each game to import the world-state (nevermind that it was oftentimes broken at places), especially in reality of more and more chapters existing and multiple playthroughs in itself allows for way more flexibility both in terms of playing as in terms of designing. Now it's a matter of refinement and/or future iteration.

Whether they managed something or not is a matter of opinion. 

What matters is that it ultimately results in something of a different story. In DA there exist themes of subjectivity, of looking at things from different perspectives and how - sic! - past events (whether we have control over them or not) affect the future OR how different things and people acting on the continent affect our decisions and choices.

We can discuss and dispute how well choices have been treated, whether on an individual basis or in bulk - but it's hard to ignore the fact that Thedas is a living, breathing thing with multiple actors vying to influence it and secrets waiting to be revealed to shake the entire thing, metaphorically and not. That alone allows for a story in which it is not just explainable but even expected for not all our choices having an effect we expect or for it to be irrelevant or negated (sometimes even by our next PCs).

The only thing DA2 requires is for there to have been a reason to escape to Kirkwall, and it happens to be the blight which would have occurred regardless of the DAO protags existence or actions. The player choices of DAO isn't essential, and has no impact on the story of 2. I can't think of any examples in the DA universe where the main story is altered by any player choices in previous games.

There are many where the unalterable events are a trigger to something in the next game but that is lore, not player choice and would happen with or without a game playthrough.

If you can give me an example of some major event happening/not happening or some plot choice being unavailable due to decisions the player makes in a game before I'll revisit this topic to talk with you, but we're going round in circles here.

What we get is the same story with slightly different details. If we want a different story, then the choices we make in-game should lead to greater divergence in the game itself.
[/quote][/div]

[/div][/quote]

My point is:  Bioware should focus on branching the narrative within the game where the branch occurs.  Rather than kicking the can down to the next game.  More In Hushed Whispers/Champions of the Just, less Old God Baby.

DA is built to be subjective (to an extent at least) and for us to not take what we see or experience entirely for what it is. We're piecing the full picture from what we have and new information we're given, sooooooo... that's kind of the point?

With that said - I don't see how Hawke's presence means that what Varric said has been 'complete BS'. Varric story, or at least large parts of it, are corroborated or confirmed by events and other characters we meet on the way. Regardless of what their fate was, companions and different characters existed or still exist and were witnesses or participants in the events, which had further consequences that we're dealing with in subsequent chapters.
What did you expect? Different characters with different stories and dialogues and different motivations and some additional mini-content written for them (exchange with Morrigan, comments of Fiona, etc) even if they find themselves in different parts of the narrative, just aren't enough? ...Who has unrealistic expectations here?
How do you know that Flemeth has rendered anything irrelevant? Even if she took the power and walked away, it's clear that something else was accomplished that wasn't during the other scene. Morrigan makes it quite clear that Flemeth was testing her - what was she testing her for and how relevant it will be for the future? I don't think we can tell ATM.
I am reading and I am asking: why should it and why is it supposed to be so relevant? Not all choice has to matter - nor it would, even if the story was entirely linear. Besides - wasn't the Hawke's story theme the one fo a person who is basically thrown into the hurricane and regardless of their choices it ends how it ends?
Choice-wise. Story-wise it's the foundation for the Inquisition's story. Again - not conflating these things would be nice.
What andydandymandy said.

Also - I think we have a very different definition of 'meaty' or what constitutes for 'occasional cameo and reference'.
You think this is long?

Some of the matters of how to tell stories have been experimented on and iterated (to a different degree of success) through different mediums *for decades* now if not more (in case of literature)... and you think that they should have it nailed after just 10 years in the youngest medium of them all, that is also most directly impacted by advancements in technology?

Nevermind that in 10 years now they've only produced 3 games from one franchise - with other studios/series not releasing a tremendous amount of similar games in the past decade either. Evidently, creating interactive, branching stories like that and iterating from them is neither easy nor fast.
I'll leave out arguing whether DAK offers 'just cameos' or more - what I'd like to point out is that (depending what BW will decide) nobody said that Dragon Age Keep will remain what it is now, or whether it will evolve further together with Bioware itself and technology available to them and us.
...But why would we want a different story? What would be the point of it? Dragon Age is simply not a game where choice exists for choices' sake. There's also no written rule that every game offering choices should provide us with consequences or branching to each of them, especially when there DO exist in-story factors that can make them less impactful than we'd like.

I play DA not just because of choices, but because I like that universe, characters, and story - the fact that I CAN influence them or events in the game to an extent is a dimension I greatly enjoy, but if the trade-off for my choices being way more consequential means losing any of the above three (because it will, given current realities of gamedev), I say that it's not a fair trade-off at all.

Overall, I enjoy what's available and I'm curious about the future - because nothing here seems set in stone when it comes to what we'll get next. I'm the sort of person who enjoys observing evolution of the medium/story/series as much as experiencing the effects of it, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they have in store... or, at the very least, how are going to bend and overcome current limitations and any other obstacles on their path to integrate their story with personal player preferences.