About lack of choice....

[superlloyd]

There is one thing I would like to do, that this game doesn't...
What if I let Solas tear up the Veil?
Consequence be damned! Let the magic and spirits flood the world and Elves be immortal again!
Plus this is right at the end... cost nothing to let us chose that!

As Laezel would say, Tshhhk, let the strong be strong!

[Quacksalber]

In the other games you couldn't do that either.
In DA:O. support the Blight
in DA2 Blow up the chantry with Anders
In DAI: Join Corpyheus.

[Edstyles]

The game is a bad rpg . So its to be expected. Rpgs are supposed to have the freedom of choice and apparently there is little to none in this game . How is it that this is the best they can do with 10 years of development?

[gehenna]

Originally posted by EH!:

In the other games you couldn't do that either.
In DA:O. support the Blight
in DA2 Blow up the chantry with Anders
In DAI: Join Corpyheus.

True enough. Though you did very much get the choice of how you went about playing your character since you have bad/evil choices you could make in previous installments. And in DA:V you have to be a goody-2-shoes no matter what. BW saying that they took out Blood Magic for mages because they felt that that wasn't what heroes should do really, tells you all you need to know in that respect.

Honestly, I feel they should've taken out the little nudity that there is and tone down the violence just a bit and this game would've been PG-13 at most. The juxtaposition between the few M rated bits and the generally, let's call it, youthful tone of the game is just strange to me.

[Epsilonne]

Oh they had a fail state where you fail in preventing Solas ritual, you can see the sketchs in the art book of veilguard p 44 or 45. People are separate from their soul and drop (dead?) on the spot. And animals are chilling :p
There was also another fail state where mad Solas kills Rook for real through their dreams, I would have loved to see these fail states in the final game :D

[superlloyd]

Originally posted by Epsilonne:

Oh they had a fail state where you fail in preventing Solas ritual, you can see the sketchs in the art book of veilguard p 44 or 45. People are separate from their soul and drop (dead?) on the spot. And animals are chilling :p
There was also another fail state where mad Solas kills Rook for real through their dreams, I would have loved to see these fail states in the final game :D

Nice!
Yea, they should have left them in!

[Quacksalber]

Originally posted by gehenna:

Originally posted by EH!:

In the other games you couldn't do that either.
In DA:O. support the Blight
in DA2 Blow up the chantry with Anders
In DAI: Join Corpyheus.

True enough. Though you did very much get the choice of how you went about playing your character since you have bad/evil choices you could make in previous installments. And in DA:V you have to be a goody-2-shoes no matter what. BW saying that they took out Blood Magic for mages because they felt that that wasn't what heroes should do really, tells you all you need to know in that respect.

Honestly, I feel they should've taken out the little nudity that there is and tone down the violence just a bit and this game would've been PG-13 at most. The juxtaposition between the few M rated bits and the generally, let's call it, youthful tone of the game is just strange to me.

For some reason they opted for a player character where it wouldn't make sense to be evil. I think this was a decision made by higher ups who deemed content that won't be experienced by all players to be a waste of resources. The lacklustre romances are another example of this. The reality is, Bioware is owned by EA, who will inevitably make profit-driven decisions (misguided in this case), but I'd rather have a more restrictive game than none at all.

[Quacksalber]

Originally posted by posthum:

Originally posted by EH!:

The reality is, Bioware is owned by EA, who will inevitably make profit-driven decisions (misguided in this case), but I'd rather have a more restrictive game than none at all.

Take this realization in the context of the announcement of no DLC and the question about the game's commercial success becomes a trivial one.

Can you be more specific?

They said that months ago (right after announcing the game as Veilguard as opposed to Dreadwolf), and I interpreted it as an attempt to appeal to players who keep complaining about DLC's, same as the no EA app and it being single player. Perhaps a compromise devs fought for.

[Quacksalber]

Originally posted by posthum:

In more specific terms I think it is apparent that decision makers at EA are beholden to the bottomline only and that the decision against DLC is an economic one.

In short, whenever they announced that, they already knew that making DLC would cost them more than they stand to profit from it.

In not so short, the game itself was supposedly cancelled and rebooted repeatedly, and what saw the light of day as "Veilguard" was a last ditch effort to rush out the door what little was there in order to recuperate at least some of the already sunken costs.

Makes sense.

[Quacksalber]

Originally posted by Character Name:

I don't think you can really give choice in the events that setup the game. If you let Solas tear up the veil, it would be a completely different game.

The problem with lack of choice really is that you have to do exactly what they want you to do. For example, there's a chest you can't get to - You have to use the gryphon to knock something down, so you can hop up to it. There's NO OTHER WAY to get it. You can't find an alternate path. You can have Harding raise up a block. You can't shoot the rope. You can't get a street kid to climb up the beam. Etc. Every problem has one single solution. And a large number of the puzzles are (simplified) "Find the keycard for the door to open it" - in this case, key card is "wisp" or "battery", etc. This is just lazy programming.

I think they did that on purpose to make the whole thing of being forced to have all companions more coherent.