This game has really got some critical role-playing issues...

[Aged Swine]

I realize this has already been discussed a lot by now and none of the developers really care what anyone thinks 2 years after the release, but I just can't keep it to myself anymore. I am still in Act 2, going on DIsfavored route, and it's the third time in a very short while when I just want to rage-quit the game because it mockingly strips me of my right to choose.

I am sick and tired of being treated like Ashe's slave every time the story reaches a major point. I only chose him as ally in Act 1 because at one point it literally forced me to choose, with no option to refuse both. So why the hell does the game insist on railroading me to blindly follow Ashe's every order since, no matter how much I might disapprove of it?!

Sure, there are a lot of "betray alliance" options scattered around minor dialogues, but they are all of the dumbest, meaningless kind: I come to speak to someone who I know to be my ally and have an option to attack them without any reason or provocation. That is NOT the kind of character I am trying to play. At the same time, all of these options happen to be right BEFORE I get a good reason to betray that alliance! What the hell!

It really started small - at first, I was unhappy that I had to slaughter just about everyone in my path, but it did make sense that they wouldn't trust me now (even though I do feel there were a lot of missed opportunities to add some creative solutions). The end of Blade Grave even made me happy for a time, because it did give me an important choice (even though it still came only after having to slaughter everyone just to move on). But then it just all went downhill from there. And now, it's been twice that I've told myself: one more order like this and I am refusing to follow it, no matter the cost. And what do you know? Of course: the most I can do is to argue a bit or voice my disapproval (sometimes), earn some meaningless wrath score and grudgingly go on with doing what I've been told to do. Because "Ashe does not really need my approval". Fine, point taken, he's an Archon of War after all - but where's my option as an independent Fatebinder to tell him to go rut himself at that very moment?! If he does not need my approval for anything, why do I need an ally who's got no respect for me? I am not one of his legion, damn it!

...So I've just tried loading a slightly earlier save and taking that last dumb "betray alliance" option. And I'm now really tempted to go for this option, if only because my possible replies to the first missive I received from Tunon reflect EXACTLY what I feel. It all makes perfect sense (for now, anyway). But why, oh why do I have to metagame by loading an earlier save and making a completely meaningless choice of acting like a mentally unstable maniac to switch onto that route, instead of explicitly breaking (not "betraying"!) the alliance the very moment I am given a GOOD REASON to become dissatisfied with it?!

How could Obsidian not notice they are basically ruining one of the best aspects of their game with such unexplicable laziness? Was it really so hard to add a few more "break alliance" options right where they make perfect sense, not just at random points before?..

[Balkoth]

The only reason you're following his orders is because you are investigating him and trying to earn his trust. So you can convict and have him assassinated later.

Tunon tells you to do this explicitly. You're not a good guy, you're a cog in the machine and do what Tunon tells you to do.

If you want to betray the alliance, then you can do so. Until you do however, you're going to have to follow the orders of Tunon.

[Aged Swine]

Originally posted by Balkoth:

You're not a good guy, you're a cog in the machine and do what Tunon tells you to do.

I am also investigating Nerat while being enemies with him (and finding a lot more convincing evidence on him, by the way). No reason why I can't do the same with Ashe and justify it to Tunon. As the immediate results of a "betrayal" clearly show. Also, in many cases I am free to be a "good guy" as long as the end result is achieved, and there are also plenty of ways I can think of to justify to Tunon why some of Ashe's orders may be "bad for business". After all, evaluating legality of what he demands from me and his soldiers is part of my investigation for Tunon, isn't it?

Originally posted by Balkoth:

If you want to betray the alliance, then you can do so.

My problem is exactly that - no, I can't! Not at any meaningful moment!

Yes, I can attack disfavored soldiers I've been sent to make contact with. I can kill disfavored soldiers I've been sent to rescue. I can lash out at a cautious earthshaker for demanding to know my business after I've been explicitly warned and given a "password sign" to show him. Why would any sane and stable person do any of this at such random moment after getting this far with these allies?!

Instead, when I am told to butcher a tribe of beastmen, even my journal says exactly "they must all die", meaning someone has decided for me already that there are no negotiations possible or acceptable, even though the end goal of disfavored is simply to pass from point A to point B. And I don't have any option to betray alliance from the moment I'm being given the task until the very moment I've finished it (exactly in the manner specified). At no point in any of the dialogue trees can I say "no, I will not do this!" and face the consequences. There are also no other meetings with the disfavored since getting the task which would allow me to "betray alliance" in any way (the last such point is right before meeting the men who give me the task). So it all looks like this: I am being told to do something I don't want to do, and my only way to avoid doing this is to load a save before being told all that and find a way to attack my allies at the nearest convenience because I magically know they'll give me a reason soon if I don't. Some role-playing!

Same with the next episode, where earthshakers want to blight the land. This time, at least, I am given the right to disagree with everyone, including Ashe. But my disagreement does not change anything of course, and at the end all I can do is follow orders I don't like just to progress in the game. Or, again, load an earlier save and betray alliance before entering the camp - that is, before even being told of the plan I disagree with. How does any of this make any sense? Why not give me the betrayal option right when I need it, not before or after? People don't normally betray alliances on a whim, they do it either for reasons, or under pressure. And Tyranny works exactly opposite to that.

[E.Moutaire]

You can look up my topic - I was indeed asking about the most 'gracefull' way of ending alliance. There is a list of places where you can break alliance.
As for Beasts - it's impossible to talk them down. They won't listen. I tried to help them but their leader was too stubborn and attacked me just because.
I wouldn't put ENTIRE blame on Ashe because the Prima made her own decision to not listen to any reason.
This IS role playing. This is role playing of someone who either way is PART of bigger political machine. You are not hissy-pantsy knight in shining armor. You are part of bigger structure of Hegemony - you follow orders of Archons.
Your biggest worry has to be Tunon and only him. As for Ashe and Nerat you are taking part in their own game of waging war - whether you like it or not, you have to stand it.
Yes I remember Stone Sea at this point you either way already commited yourself to help Disfavored so really there is little to no choice of betrayal except of murdering Earthshakers.
Also ... nobody said the choices will be black or white.
Even the biggest crimes Nerat or Ashe commits are justifiable on some angles. The angle of war which Kyros trapped all of you.

I doubt in your own reality you have also every freedom to refuse to do something you don't want to do from your boss. You will have to oblige.
Think of soldiers - disobidience in army is punished always.
Reality of Tyranny is war - cruel war because Ashe and Nerat want nothing else then destroy themselves totally.
That's why they won't stop at ANYTHING to get the job done.
You are there trapped with their meddlings and because your authority is Adjudicator who also wants those two to be judged ? You have to be there, to be his agent.
Tyranny is as realistic in aspect of being part of larger stucture as possible.
Obsidian did not strip you off freedom, they picked to create game about Hegemony and it's stucture and you ARE part of it. You have as much freedom as system will allow you to - not less not more.
If you want to rage quit just because Tyranny get's serious about political structures and how it looks like ? And with black and white only choices ? I guess you may pick yet another BioWare title because they do not understand either gray morality or neutrality.

[Batbro]

No, I'm gonna go ahead and agree with OP on this one. I love this game and overall enjoyed my Disfavored playthrough, but his complaints rang true in my run as well. More options to betray alliances and switch to the anarchist path would be great for die-hard roleplayers.

The bit at the Stone Sea in particular stood out to me. The character I was roleplaying ABSOLUTELY would have drawn the line at blighting the land and immediately looked for a way to sabotage the Earthshakers' efforts, even if it meant risking his life and position.

And the real kicker was that it shouldn't have even cost him anything! The ritual would have failed without his direct intervention! He could have sabotaged it by simply not fixing it in time, blamed it on the chaos of the battle, and maintained his alliance and good standing! But I didn't have an option to NOT fix the ritual, so I'm forced to commit genocide.

Tunon doesn't care whether I maintain the alliance with Ashe. As you've said, I'm a member of Tunon's Court, I'm not working for anyone but him. I am under no obligation to work with Ashe, just as I'm under no obligation to work with Nerat. Tunon doesn't even care if you work with the rebels so long as you can justify yourself.

Even if you think Tunon WOULDN'T stand for it and sentences you to death and you have to fight Bleden Mark, that's already a thing that can happen in the game! They've accounted for that possibility and have scripted it to happen under certain circumstances. It's a fight you can win, and then you fight Tunon himself, which you can also win, and so on and so forth... There are many paths to the game's ending, and letting you switch between them a little more would be a welcome change.

In another great Obsidian title, Fallout: New Vegas, the anarchist route (Yes Man) is ALWAYS open to the player, as a fallback option if they somehow lock themselves out of every other possible faction. I feel like the anarchist route in this game could/should have served a similar function.

[H_84]

I didnt read your whole post, but enough to know this is something that has bugged me and im still early in the game. I'm in echofall, I think. In a specific dialog option I cant really walk an even keel. I'm going to gain wrath one way or another. The more I read about how this game plays I see I should just make a choice and let it happen.

[Aged Swine]

Originally posted by E.Moutaire:

You can look up my topic - I was indeed asking about the most 'gracefull' way of ending alliance. There is a list of places where you can break alliance.

Thanks for the tip, I checked it and it's even worse than I remembered. :( Especially if the early breakup really leaves you without Trial of Archons...

Originally posted by E.Moutaire:

As for Beasts - it's impossible to talk them down. They won't listen. I tried to help them but their leader was too stubborn and attacked me just because.

I know. I tried too. And that's something that kinda makes sense, but I still don't like it when it becomes a pattern. Basically my whole playthrough feels like almost endless repetitive slaughtering of one group after another. Which, again, might make perfect sense if you view Tyranny as a game about an ongoing war (which it definitely is), but still boring for a game which seems to pretend being a "deep" RPG. For me, this is yet another example of a pattern I'm seeing too often lately, when bad design decisions are motivated by trying to make everything "believable" or "realistic". Believability is a great thing - but only as long as it doesn't hurt enjoyability too much. And I don't enjoy being forced into similar situations with predictable outcomes again and again. By now, I already know that if I meet a group which is not my ally, I'll have to either fight or intimidate them (or maybe intimidate a few, then fight the rest). No other options whatsoever. Where did all of Obsidian's usual creativity go, I wonder?..

Originally posted by E.Moutaire:

This IS role playing. This is role playing of someone who either way is PART of bigger political machine. You are not hissy-pantsy knight in shining armor. You are part of bigger structure of Hegemony - you follow orders of Archons.

What you describe is playing a role that someone assigns to you. For me, real role-playing is when I choose a role myself, and am free to adapt it to changing circumstances, as my vision of my current character's beliefs and principles dictates. I am fine with role-playing someone who strictly follows orders, as long as this was MY choice of role. If, at some point, I decide that my character can no longer follow them, I expect being able to break off to a different path at any suitable moment, as long as the game does allow for different paths. And Tyranny certainly does - it's just extremely bad at timing the branching. And there is at least one recent example of an RPG which did branching (including betrayals and even "betrayal chains") a lot better despite being developed with much less resources (which definitely shows in all its non-narrative aspects). That would be Age of Decadence.

Originally posted by E.Moutaire:

I doubt in your own reality you have also every freedom to refuse to do something you don't want to do from your boss. You will have to oblige.

Well, you are wrong. :) In my reality, I am absolutely free to simply quit my job at any moment if I really want to (and yes, I have enough money to not bother looking for another one for a good while). Sure, that might not be the case for most people in the world. Then again, are most people in Tyranny's world privileged traveling judges with great fighting skills who claim ancient spires and absorb magical spells for a living while sprouting extra magical abilities just because someone loves / hates them enough? ;)

Originally posted by E.Moutaire:

Think of soldiers - disobidience in army is punished always.

So? Let the Archon of War try and punish me if he can. ;) I don't mind. But I do mind my character being physically unable to disobey.

Originally posted by E.Moutaire:

If you want to rage quit just because Tyranny get's serious about political structures and how it looks like ? And with black and white only choices ? I guess you may pick yet another BioWare title because they do not understand either gray morality or neutrality.

Designing multiple paths and letting me switch them at random points but forbidding the same every time it would really make sense is not "getting serious". It's just "being lazy" (or careless, who knows). And no, I don't want it to be black and white - the whole "evil has already won" concept was the biggest reason why I pre-ordered this game the moment it became possible. Sadly, I'm still struggling to make myself finish it at least once since then (which is not typical for me, at least not for the games I preorder and start playing immediately after release).

In fact, I would say that all the biggest choices I've seen here are either exactly black and white (e.g. how to end the edict of storms), or a standard "gray" pattern I'm a bit tired of by now: you are given 2 bad choices and a third "middle ground", which always ends up being more detailed, more rewarding and, ultimately, "whiter" than any of the 2 others - which means it's still "black and white" in the end, because the "right" choice is blatantly obvious for anyone except those who just miss it. Bаstard's Wound is a good example of this.

[Aged Swine]

Originally posted by Batbro:

More options to betray alliances and switch to the anarchist path would be great for die-hard roleplayers.

I wouldn't be so bold as to call myself a die-hard roleplayer. It's just that, in my opinion, Obsidian managed to miss something very basic here. They implemented everything they had to - but failed to "connect the dots" properly. And it instantly ruined a lot of what they probably intended to achieve.

Originally posted by Batbro:

In another great Obsidian title, Fallout: New Vegas, the anarchist route (Yes Man) is ALWAYS open to the player, as a fallback option if they somehow lock themselves out of every other possible faction. I feel like the anarchist route in this game could/should have served a similar function.

Yeah, except F:NV gave you absolute freedom to go wherever you want and kill whoever you want as long as you can survive it (which wasn't hard of course, but that's another story), and Tyranny is a typical linear script with fixed branching points. Actually, Yes Man wasn't just a fallback route for locking yourself out of factions. He was the ONLY unkillable person in the world, which allowed to properly finish the game even if you played a psychopath who killed everyone else in the world (something that wasn't even possible in similar Bethesda games since Morrowind).

Tyranny, on the other hand, strictly follows the now-universal rule of only letting you fight when the game wants you to. So what it really needed first was a bit more ways to lock yourself out of something. ;) The real problem is: it has a great fallback (the anarchist path), but not nearly enough ways to stray from other (obvious) paths. Which makes that fallback a bit of a metagaming option instead of a conscious role-playing choice.

Funny how Obsidian is able to beat Bethesda on its own territory, but makes such basic mistakes on its own...

[Aged Swine]

Originally posted by Grubius:

I didnt read your whole post, but enough to know this is something that has bugged me and im still early in the game. I'm in echofall, I think. In a specific dialog option I cant really walk an even keel. I'm going to gain wrath one way or another. The more I read about how this game plays I see I should just make a choice and let it happen.

Well, gaining wrath one way or another is quite normal and even expected when there are conflicts of interests involved. And gaining wrath in Tyranny isn't really "bad". It just unlocks different reputation abilities (and perhaps some other things, I'm not quite sure myself yet since I'm still on my first playthrough).

[suejak]

Although I love Tyranny, I think I agree with OP on this one. You should be free to move between the paths a little more organically, which would add so much richness to your individual unique playthrough. Overall, although there is a lot of choice early on, it does tend to railroad you after that bit. "He was fine with Ashe up until ***, and that was the breaking point" would be a great moment for that player, and I can remember some stuff that would have helped my playthroughs as well.

As cool as the ideas behind Tyranny are, there are several obvious problems in implementation. If you go the Rebel route from the beginning, you will still be railroaded until specifically given the choice to switch sides... after kiling a full "dungeon's worth" of rebels... This made me very uncomfortable at first, so I had to look up how to work with the rebels before realizing I'd only get the choice after I'd killed a bunch of them - not the best game design, nor honestly what my character would have done.

A clearer example is at Lethian's Crossing if you're on the Disfavored path. You have to kill the Bronze Brotherhood to get through, but it's not clear why you're not allowed more nuance. You can't just talk your way through or even try to help them with their plans. Because you're "Disfavored," the only option is to kill them, and even this isn't clear from the game at all -- the only way to tell is that you have no other options presented to you. YOU have to be the aggressor and fight through, and the only reason I know that is because I had to look it up too. I wanted to be sure I didn't need to find the right item or whatever first to maybe explore the Bronze Brotherhood before deciding they needed to die. Instead, the game makes you decide they have to die before you know anything about them.

How many people really want to be "100% loyal Disfavored" or "100% loyal Chorus"? There should be a lot more nuance to it without "changing paths" necessarily.

[H_84]

I just finished it and did not mean to roll through to the ending. I figured there’d be at least one more fight. I’m not sure I want to do another playthrough because I want to wrap up pillars before deadfire

But, it was kind of a bummer. I would have liked to have gone back and wrecked havoc in some other areas.

[E.Moutaire]

I won't agree with OP either way. There is a reason why game is called Tyranny not 'Fatebinder of world' or whatever title will suit for character in Tyranny not giving damn about Hegemony structure.
This is political game about a system. And role play is set in Hegemony structure.
What I expected from the game was simple - story about titled Tyranny and how it looks from the inside. And this is exactly what game provided.
If I want personal story where I am not bound to structures and I am alone to do my thing I can play New Vegas - you are just courier tossed into action.
Or Pillars of Eternity where it's just you seeking the truth amongst conspiracies.

Yes some choices are lacking - like I can't say that I am pleased that the most gracefull way of ending alliance is to basically retake castle - I would rather came clear to Ashe and say that alliance is over because I have to follow Court orders thus need to stay as neutral as I can be in conflict, but then again it's system with authorities. And none buissness will be 100% good.
If I want nonsensical SUPPOSED structure where nothing makes sense and I can do whatever I want - even go on murder spree - I would turn on Dragon Age Origins or Inquisition and suffer thourgh horrible and illogical storytelling design.

In way I could compare Tyranny to Planescape Torment - both are played as stories where you are quite stuck in certain part of world. Both also had some mysterious powerfull figure you don't really want to piss off.
Yeah I could pull off here complains similar to OP towards Torment - I disliked the ending and lack of choice there as well. Felt like barely anything mattered in end.
Also similar to Prima - I could not for example talked down Ravel and had to fight her.
You can't talk her down too - so you are forced to fight against your will.
And this was Black Isle game ...
cRPG sometimes do take away options if it feels fitting for story they are telling.
In case of Tyranny you are just part of larger structure, and Ashe is not exactly ... how to say it ... he treats you like his pawn while he shouldn't.
You are not his soldier but Ashe is too stubborn or proud to accept it. That's his personal flaw - stubborness, pride and arrogance.
Nobody in Tyranny - a world full of flawed people - will reward you for playing naive knight in shining armor who only wants to make good. You are going to endure Hegemony and either survive it or just ... rage quit.

I guess it's better if OP will leave game - I mean what's the point really ? If the game only wants you to make rage quit then why suffer ? I certainly don't want to suffer through that horrible Origins because I would rage quit the game right after intros.


@suejak - Yhm ... you know that factions work in games that way ? For example you can't in NV talk down Boone to NOT start shooting at legion forces. He sees faction and is just "poof poof poof" whether you like it or not - it's blind hatred.

Voices of Nerath is monster with paranoia always seeking treachery (yes he also expects Kyros to betray him) - you will slightly change side and his paranoia will set him against you. He will easy jump on you even if you didn't do exactly anything - he is always looking for treachery in people. ALWAYS.

Ashe is stubborn, proud and ignorant - and if you will make slightly moves towards independence then he is going to be mad and call you traitor. Also he is millitary - millitary also do not expect their troops to have ANY doubts in orders they are given. And Ashe expects you to follow this logic. The only time when his arrogance acknowledged that you MAY have a problem with morality and orders of his was at the end with Lazurite.

Both of these also share mutual blind hatred to each other. What leaves NO place for reasonable and logical tactic to be JUST neutral. Heck they both insist that even Court (!!!) cannot stay neutral - they tried for months to put Tunon into clarification WHO he does support via endless sea of complains, trails, blaming each other and usuall wasting Tunon's time at work.
All what they achieved was tremendous boredom and annoyance from Tunon and urge of killing both of these fools by Bleden Mark.

In hatred world there is no neutrality - you are either on their side or against it.
Shallow world, which requires simplifiaction ? The first to go is acknowledgement of neutrality - and reality of these two Ashe and Nerath ? It's war.
Wars always lead to simplification of view. You are either with us or against us - no third option.

[Fantoche]

Personally I agree with OP. Yes you're not the good guy but when I get guests that say "Deal with the beastmen" and every single dialog options lead to a fight to the death, it really loses it's impact. And they do it twice in a freaking row with the purple faction. Here so see these beastmen in their lair and negotiate. Next job, Earthshakers need to do something but beastmen are in the zone, go talk to them.

Why not just starting with everyone being hostile instead?

[Fantoche]

Originally posted by Fantoche Dreemurr:

Personally I agree with OP. Yes you're not the good guy but when I get guests that say "Deal with the beastmen" and every single dialog options lead to a fight to the death, it really loses it's impact. And they do it twice in a freaking row with the purple faction. Here so see these beastmen in their lair and negotiate. Next job, Earthshakers need to do something but beastmen are in the zone, go talk to them.

Why not just starting with everyone being hostile instead?

Seriously after the first, the beastwoman party member whines and asks me to stop genociding her people, I tell her fine and right away I have no choice but to butcher everyone again. How about a show of force to scare them away? There's 8 of them total across the whole map, they're so hopelessly outmatched it's nothing short of suicide

[Aged Swine]

I'll put it like this: if an RPG game puts a serious focus on proper dialogues, proper character development (and I don't mean the charsheet) and choice & consequence, it MUST go all the way. When a game starts assuming my character's personal traits (like readiness to obey orders no matter what they are) based on just one (forced and reluctant) choice at the beginning - it's a crime in my eyes. Nobody but me has the right to decide what my character thinks and believes in this type of RPG.

Such limitations are fine in games where most of your character is pre-written for you (like the Witcher series), or even sometimes in games like the aforementioned New Vegas, where nobody including yourself really cares (let's face it) about deep reasons and serious role-playing. But not here.

For me, trying to role-play a "relatively" good guy in a tyrannic world is as interesting as trying to act evil in RPGs which don't really appreciate it most of the time (I once did a full neutral-evil playthrough of BG2, which was definitely better at it than most, even though still very far from perfection). But in both cases I want to still have the freedom for choosing my own nuances (when to be "evil", when to be "good"). I am not interested in playing a one-dimensional obedient character just because someone at Obsidian decided it was a good idea to rob me of the most important choices just to force me on the path which RPG players rarely take. I would very much prefer to play that very same path on a different playthrough, with a character I specifically designed in my mind to be a 100% obedient Disfavored. I really don't understand why anyone would think I want everything to be black and white, if all I'm talking about is more proper "grayness".

Originally, I was planning to role-play someone who is loyal to Kyros (mostly for pragmatic self-preservation reasons, which also matches my "noble scion" background) and doesn't mind violence and hard decisions when he can't help it (so I took dual-wield as my primary weapon skill), but still has something of a moral compass and likes to be nice to people from time to time (especially if it doesn't cost him much). Diplomacy is also a strong preference whenever possible (dual-wield is only for when it fails). Having an ally as strong (and orderly) as the Disfavored does look like a good benefit at first. However, the whole course of the game slowly but surely convinced me that this "ally" of mine is completely useless to me. I mean, why do I even need them if all they do is send me to do something dangerous they can't? Why can't these "greatest warriors" do ANYTHING of use without me, a simple Fatebinder with a band of three even more simple friends, nursing them?! And some of Obsidian's mechanical decisions only serve to make this impression stronger (like the fact that none of your non-party allies can actually kill anyone in any battle without someone from your party doing the last hit). So when the time comes to choose between keeping a useless and irritating ally and preventing a completely unnecessary evil, this character would definitely choose the second. He never tried to be a knight in shining armor - but he doesn't want to become a devil either. At least not without a really good reason. Staying friends with Ashe is NOT a good reason, considering how impotent his legion looks without my "modest" help.

So what's so strange about me wanting to rage-quit when the game continuously breaks all my attempts to stay within the role I chose for my Fatebinder at the beginning? It wasn't the game world that forced me. It wasn't Ashe (he couldn't force me if he wanted to, which I'll probably have to prove very soon). It wasn't Kyros, Tunon or Bleden Mark. The only thing that forces me is Obsidian's decision to not include dialogue options which make the most sense at the right moments. And that has nothing to do with the game world or tyranny concepts. That's just a pure immersion breaker. "Go do that!" - "I disagree!" - "I don't care! Go!" - "Yes sir!". That's not how I expect an RPG dialogue tree to be built...

I'm really tired of games which pretend to have choice & consequence (TM), but lack choice where it matters most. I've seen it too many times to silently tolerate it anymore. And when I see this here, again, I'm starting to lose faith in one the last few developers who seemed to understand how it should work.

Yes, you can (and should) do games which allow the players to be evil (in many nuanced ways). No, you cannot force a player's character to act 100% evil (or 100% good) for a whole playthrough based on a single early choice and still call yourself a proper RPG. Not when you do have other options actually implemented and fully supported for someone who did that early decision differently.

I'd say it's almost the same as the usual practice of putting the one and only important decision into the final - but worse. Much worse, because a bad final only ruins your fun at the end, not your whole run.

[Gloomseeker]

Originally posted by Kirinyale:

I'll put it like this: if an RPG game puts a serious focus on proper dialogues, proper character development (and I don't mean the charsheet) and choice & consequence, it MUST go all the way. When a game starts assuming my character's personal traits (like readiness to obey orders no matter what they are) based on just one (forced and reluctant) choice at the beginning - it's a crime in my eyes. Nobody but me has the right to decide what my character thinks and believes in this type of RPG.

Such limitations are fine in games where most of your character is pre-written for you (like the Witcher series), or even sometimes in games like the aforementioned New Vegas, where nobody including yourself really cares (let's face it) about deep reasons and serious role-playing. But not here.

For me, trying to role-play a "relatively" good guy in a tyrannic world is as interesting as trying to act evil in RPGs which don't really appreciate it most of the time (I once did a full neutral-evil playthrough of BG2, which was definitely better at it than most, even though still very far from perfection). But in both cases I want to still have the freedom for choosing my own nuances (when to be "evil", when to be "good"). I am not interested in playing a one-dimensional obedient character just because someone at Obsidian decided it was a good idea to rob me of the most important choices just to force me on the path which RPG players rarely take. I would very much prefer to play that very same path on a different playthrough, with a character I specifically designed in my mind to be a 100% obedient Disfavored. I really don't understand why anyone would think I want everything to be black and white, if all I'm talking about is more proper "grayness".

Originally, I was planning to role-play someone who is loyal to Kyros (mostly for pragmatic self-preservation reasons, which also matches my "noble scion" background) and doesn't mind violence and hard decisions when he can't help it (so I took dual-wield as my primary weapon skill), but still has something of a moral compass and likes to be nice to people from time to time (especially if it doesn't cost him much). Diplomacy is also a strong preference whenever possible (dual-wield is only for when it fails). Having an ally as strong (and orderly) as the Disfavored does look like a good benefit at first. However, the whole course of the game slowly but surely convinced me that this "ally" of mine is completely useless to me. I mean, why do I even need them if all they do is send me to do something dangerous they can't? Why can't these "greatest warriors" do ANYTHING of use without me, a simple Fatebinder with a band of three even more simple friends, nursing them?! And some of Obsidian's mechanical decisions only serve to make this impression stronger (like the fact that none of your non-party allies can actually kill anyone in any battle without someone from your party doing the last hit). So when the time comes to choose between keeping a useless and irritating ally and preventing a completely unnecessary evil, this character would definitely choose the second. He never tried to be a knight in shining armor - but he doesn't want to become a devil either. At least not without a really good reason. Staying friends with Ashe is NOT a good reason, considering how impotent his legion looks without my "modest" help.

So what's so strange about me wanting to rage-quit when the game continuously breaks all my attempts to stay within the role I chose for my Fatebinder at the beginning? It wasn't the game world that forced me. It wasn't Ashe (he couldn't force me if he wanted to, which I'll probably have to prove very soon). It wasn't Kyros, Tunon or Bleden Mark. The only thing that forces me is Obsidian's decision to not include dialogue options which make the most sense at the right moments. And that has nothing to do with the game world or tyranny concepts. That's just a pure immersion breaker. "Go do that!" - "I disagree!" - "I don't care! Go!" - "Yes sir!". That's not how I expect an RPG dialogue tree to be built...

I'm really tired of games which pretend to have choice & consequence (TM), but lack choice where it matters most. I've seen it too many times to silently tolerate it anymore. And when I see this here, again, I'm starting to lose faith in one the last few developers who seemed to understand how it should work.

Yes, you can (and should) do games which allow the players to be evil (in many nuanced ways). No, you cannot force a player's character to act 100% evil (or 100% good) for a whole playthrough based on a single early choice and still call yourself a proper RPG. Not when you do have other options actually implemented and fully supported for someone who did that early decision differently.

I'd say it's almost the same as the usual practice of putting the one and only important decision into the final - but worse. Much worse, because a bad final only ruins your fun at the end, not your whole run.

Great post and very good points.

Basically this is the reason why I couldn't find the energy to replay the entire game after finishing my first playthrough (following the Anarchy path).

You've really hit the nail on the head.

I like playing evil in games (including BG) but in order for any game to be meaningful, significant or in any way relevant the player needs to have some agency.