Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Preview Dragon Age II Review Tidbits

Vibalist

Arcane
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
3,583
Location
Denmark
Grunker said:
[

So fucking what? Jesus christ, you might as well call it a day and stop playing or reading anything. The Witcher (the books and the universe) is critically acclaimed for being original, and it has less original dwarves than DA:O.

I never claimed TW was original. TW (the game) wasn't interesting to me because of how it portrayed the dwarves and elves, whom I thought were pretty standard (albeit more brutal and human-like) versions of dwarves and elves as seen in most high fantasy settings. It was interesting (and maybe even original) because of other factors, which I'd gladly go into if it comes to that. Witcher may have had it's fair share of clichés, but it had its fair share of new inventions as well, which DA really didn't.


You don't have to invent the wheel everytime; using clichés in an interesting faction is the core of many good works. Again, I'm not saying DA:O is fucking brilliant, I'm saying it does away with some old fantasy staples and plays a little with some others. How is that a bad thing?

Well, if only those clichés had been used in an interesting fashion. It's not a bad thing that Bioware makes some slight changes to the dwarf, but it hardly matters either, because they aren't making enough changes to make you forget you're dealing with the same old fantasy races that's been there since Tolkien. You say that it's not necesarry to reinvent the wheel everytime. Well, maybe not, but recreating the wheel in the exact same manner as it was created originally shouldn't fly either, and Bioware are pretty close to doing just this. They might make slight changes here and there, but these changes just aren't enough to make their version of the dwarf seem different than any other version.
So no, Bioware are not using clichés in an interesting fashion, they're making half hearted attempts at doing this, reinventing the dwarven society as a strict one with castes in order to make it fit into their "dark" and "gritty" setting, but keeping way too many of the old clichés attached to the dwarves to make them seem truly different.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Sceptic said:
KotC is a pretty cool dungeon crawler but I don't think it's in the same ballpark as Dragon Age.
Judging by those who have played and praised it it's a hell of a lot better :smug:
Better on what level? It's like comparing Arcanum to Daggerfall. Completely different sub-genres and design goals.

Let's see: DAO has brain-meltingly boring combat...
Which is still MUCH better than the Witcher's where you sit and wait for the cursor to flash. Then you click and wait again.

... painfully linear story (yes, you get lots and lots and lots of choices...
Comparing to the Witcher's story, DA is practically non-linear.

The options and choices. Like it or hate it, Dragon Age is the only game that comes close.
I just can't agree with this. Choice-wise? yeah sure, DAO has TONS of these, I'll give it that. Consequences? in the ending slides maybe. Actual SEEN consequences? yeah there's a few, such as Redcliffe being taken over by the undead. Actualy MEANINGFUL C&C, where you don't pick a suboptimal choice just because you're LARPing a jerkass? nope, not a single one.
First, not quite. Second, the whole C&C thing is kinda misunderstood. In Fallout, which, basically, introduced the C&C concept, most consequences were where they belong - in the ending slides. That's what made the game interesting. You were shown the effect of your choices on the gameworld.

What were the in-game (i.e. while you were playing the game) consequences of your choices in Shady Sands? In Arcanum's Shrouded Hills?

Choices don't have to have consequences at every step to be an interesting, desirable, and meaningful feature. An example of meaningless choices isn't a choice without an immediately noticeable effect on the gameworld, but two options that instantly lead to the same outcome, i.e. Bio dialogue options leading to the same thing.

Some choices must have consequences due to their design. For example, when you're asked to decide whom to help in the Witcher's prologue, the choice MUST have consequences because there is nothing else there. The choice, basically, becomes "do you feel like fighting bandits or the monster?", not what my character should do.

When you have to decide between making a deal with the desire demon and killing her in DA, there is a level of depth there. It's clear that the consequences won't be shown in the game, yet you understand what they are and have something to consider. It's not larping. Larping is generating your own content where none exists. In the Witcher's example, it would be pretending that without your help the monster has slaughtered all men in the courtyard or that you'd have saved that man if you went after the bandits. Dragon Age gives you a plenty. It really is a shame that the combat filler has ruined it.

Now, there are 4 kinds of choices:

- choices aimed at supporting different builds and skillsets (no consequences required). Basically, the design goal is to avoid forcing you to do things a certain way, which is one of Bloodlines' main weaknesses.

- choices aimed at letting you make your own decisions. There is nothing I hate more than when a game tells me what to do and how to handle things. Take Taris, for example. The only way past the guard to the lower city is the sith armor. Not killing him, not talking to him, but wearing the armor. The only way past the guard to the undercity is the security papers you trade the armor for. The only way to save Bastila is by winning the race and the only way to get to the race is by attacking the Vulkars base, etc. Very little, if anything, requires your input.

Choices can easily fix it. Even if the end result is the same (i.e. getting out from Taris or getting into Vizima in the Witcher), the choices allow you to do it your own way.

In the Witcher's first chapter you need to get into the city. The only way to do it is: talk to the reverend, light the fires, help the reverend's buddies by killing monsters, then he tells you about the salamandra, then the hideout house is magically enabled so NOW you can kill the guards posted outside, find the child, take him to the witch, make your first and only decision (side with the villagers or the witch), the decision triggers the beast, kill the beast, get the letter from the reverend (dead or alive, doesn't matter), enter the city, get arrested and thrown in jail, the only way out of which is via the sewers.

Now, I understand that the developers thought that it was a really awesome fucking sequence that only gets better with each replay, but this portion of the game would have been so much fucking better if there were alternative ways to deal with the salamandra, with the beast (letting it tear the guilty townsfolk apart while doing nothing would have been a nice option), and to get into the city. There was a smugglers cave near the walls. It would have been easy to add a hard to find way into the sewers, since that's where you'd end up anyway.

- choices that affect the gameplay

- and last but not the least choices that affect the gameworld. They are rare by definition and in most cases affect the ending slides or the future state of the world.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
4,566
Strap Yourselves In Codex+ Now Streaming!
J_C said:
TalesfromtheCrypt said:
J_C said:
[
Or maybe you have shit taste. Who knows? It is a possibility, isn't it?

Or maybe you are just a shitty newfag who knows nothing about what makes a good RPG?
I have observed your posts J_C. You seem to live in the dellusion that the BG games are somehow "oldschool" RPGs and venerated on the Codex. Here's news for you newfag: They are not. The Codex has a long tradition of making fun of the Baldur's Gate series. Of course, as users change, so do the codex preferences, but a few years ago, even saying that Baldur's Gate 2 is a good RPG (like I always did) was stretching it. Just look at the desciriptions of the Baldur's Gate games in the Codex game database. Does that sound positive in your ears?
Baldur's Gate is the game that started it all for BioWare. You play as a child of a god who has to fight off evil in exactly the same way every time.

Shadows of Amn follows up on the first game. The PC finds himself in a new land with new foes to face, in the same terribly linear and ph4t l00t ridden style we've come to know and love from BioWare.
Or maybe you are just a dumbass, who thinks that the date of registration decides a person's knowledge of RPGs. I know that I'm not an expert on the RPGs from the 1980s, early 1990s, but my date of registration doesn't have to do anything with that. A person registered in 2011 can be an RPG expert, s/he might have just found this site in this year. So fuck you your newfag bullshit, and stop acting like a 12 year old troll. Registration date doesn't mean shit. Also, registration date doesn't refers to the person's age. I'm not old (27), but I'm sure older than some people, who proudly call themselves oldfags. I just found the site last year. So what?

As for BG2. Yeah, I read the kind of negative discription about it. I wonder why it is in the Top 10 of Codex for several years than? I think most people who voted for it were older Codexers, since they are in majority on the site. So it is not the "newfags" who pushed it into the Top 10. Truth is, BG2 is a good RPG, and most of the Codex like it. And yeah, I think BG1 is also a good a RPG, because it is. I call them oldschool, yes. I know they are not oldschool in a way as the older Ultima, Wizardry, or the Goldbox games. But if you have a exact definition about the word "oldschool", please, enlighten me.

Oh, and you can check my posts whenever you want. I don't care about self-appointed RPG experts like yourself.

Easy there. I wasn't implying that my opinion is more valid than yours because of my join date.

It's just that I observed whenever someone called the BG games shit or mediocore, you reacted with a :retarded:- smiley or in some other way implied that this was a totally outrageous thing to say. While in fact - here on the codex - it is not.

If someone posted "Betrayal at Krondor" is a fucking pile of shit, your reaction would be justified. But if, here on the codex, you want to claim that especially Baldurs Gate 1 is more than a mediocore game and RPG, then the burden of proof is on you. You'll have to explain your opinion, a :retarded: won't suffice. That's all. Welcome to the 'Dex.
 

J_C

One Bit Studio
Patron
Developer
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
16,947
Location
Pannonia
Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
I admit a simple :retarded: answer from me was kind of lame. But as a matter of fact, Betrayal at Krondor is a piece of shit. (I'm just kidding, of course. :D) Let's get back to bashing DA2.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
Welcome to the 'Dex.

Welcome to the 'dex indeed. Where you can't post to :retarded: to Betrayal at Krondor, but you're allowed to in reponse to BG, even though BG ranks higher on the TOP10.

Excuse me, but: :retarded:

I'm not saying BG is better than BaK, mind you, but saying that a :retarded:-smiley is ok on one hand and not on the other is fucking stupid. Or should I say retarded?
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
Vault Dweller said:
choices that affect the gameplay

Are you referring to perhaps MoTB's differences in managing your curse, the good or evil paths being the choice (I really can't think of a handy parallel to that right now), or something like siding with a thieves faction for a core quest and locking out the fighter's faction quest path, leading to more stealth orientated tasks?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Edward_R_Murrow said:
Yeah...while Dragon Age wasn't gangbusters in the quest design department, it was a damn sight better than BG1 (and BG2 in certain senses), and I like the Baldur's Gate series. Need evidence? Check one of the many BG Let's Play threads. That said, Dragon Age wasn't spectacular in quest design, but it did alright. For the most part, it's standard Bioware fare, in which most choices and consequences are self contained in the questline.
There were no real choices and consequences, self-contained or otherwise, in the standard Bio design.

You enter the Sahuagin City. Your goal is to leave, but you can't until you deal with a local problem. The king wants you to kill the prince. You have no choice but to go kill the prince fighting your way through the map. At that point you get a single choice: kill the prince or agree to help him and go kill the king.

Same on Taris - the goal is to "save" Bastila. You talk to the Beks, they send you to fetch the accelerator from the Vulkars which really means killing the Vulkars' leader since the fight is unavoidable. You fight your way through to the leader, who gives you your single choice, compliments of Bioware, kill him or go back and kill the Beks' leader. The choice depends entirely on whether you want the Dark Side points or the Light Side points. You don't really care about the choice since you're just passing through.


As for VD's position that Dragon Age Origins is supposedly the best RPG since Arcanum...I'm a little confused on that stance. Mostly I don't quite understand why Bloodlines (and Alpha Protocol as well) is arbitrarily counted out of the running by the way it handles combat.
Not by the way they handle combat.

Alpha Protocol was kinda awful. Very few redeeming features. Bloodlines had a great atmosphere, writing, characters, voiceovers. The game was linear and quest design was hardly anything special. I'll be more than happy to elaborate if it's necessary.

Bloodlines arguably does a better job of this than Dragon Age, having many more conversation abilities (essentially two useful, and truly separate, skills in Persuade and Intimidate as well as Dominate and the Malkavian equivalent) as well as other non-combat skills that had a much larger impact.
Yep. Especially in quests like Calling Dr. Grout or the Nosferatu Warrens.
 

Jasede

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
24,793
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut I'm very into cock and ball torture
Just because BaK isn't ranked higher than BG in that top-ten list doesn't mean it isn't a more loved game.

You see, the love of a few experts can be stronger than what a few thousand uninformed idiots consider love. This explains why a game can have a lower rating than a different game, yet still be much better-

the power of LOVE
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
Jasede said:
You see, the love of a few experts can be stronger than what a few thousand uninformed idiots consider love.

Professional love is best love. Pay for some professional love and you'll find out why.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Uh, I think someone took a sideroad into Derp-land and got confused with my posts - I do not claim that BG has better story or quest-design than DAO. Both are shit. I argue that even BG1 has better combat, both mechanic and encounter-wise than DAO. And it was supposed to be the spiritual sequel to BG2 which was better than BG1 and it it didn't even reach BG1 level. And BG1/2 surely ain't the pinnacle in RPG-combat, heck Gold Box is much better at least mechanics wise. But BG tried whereas DAO didn't even try.

TalesFromTheCrypt said:
Ehm BG is not "really good", it is barely ok. And this is the point made here: DA fails in comparison with a 10+ year old game that was mediocore at best when released to begin with.

:thumbsup:

And Volly, I didn't lie in any part of my posts. Please point out where I did. R00fles!
 

J_C

One Bit Studio
Patron
Developer
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
16,947
Location
Pannonia
Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
Jasede said:
You see, the love of a few experts can be stronger than what a few thousand uninformed idiots consider love.
This sounds really cool. But doesn't make any sense. The uninformed idiots usually flee from Codex after their first post. The ones who voted know the games quite well.
 

a budda

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
1,099
oh come on VD, both DA and witcher fail on many rpg aspects, but when you take the most important part into consideration, one that made PS:T, BaK, MoTB, VtmB claim the position around here (story, atmosphere, narration, you know what i mean, i'm no native) then picking the better one is a non-issue

oh, and i remember shit from 90hours wasted in DA, just this uneasy feeling of... boredom
 

Jaesun

Fabulous Ex-Moderator
Patron
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
37,241
Location
Seattle, WA USA
MCA
commie said:
Am I the only one that is apprehensive knowing that AoD is being made by the same person who thinks DA:O is one of the greatest RPG's of all time?

Where has VD ever stated that?
 

commie

The Last Marxist
Patron
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,865,249
Location
Where one can weep in peace
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Jaesun said:
commie said:
Am I the only one that is apprehensive knowing that AoD is being made by the same person who thinks DA:O is one of the greatest RPG's of all time?

Where has VD ever stated that?

Well I may have exaggerated a bit, but he certainly finds enough facets of DA:O to have been superior to most other RPG's released since a decade ago to make it more than a little unsettling.

the world within these constraints of generic fantasy is very well designed and polished, and if you let it, will surprise you with its depth and the quality of its "unique takes and variants on some old familiar standards".

Role-playing (i.e. the ability to make decisions that affect both the player and the world around him) is the strongest and most enjoyable aspect of the game. Dragon Age does a better job of providing these options than any previous Bioware game, in fact any RPG since Arcanum, and rarely misses a chance to present you with an interesting choice to consider.

Bioware has managed to improve and evolve that design significantly, keeping the strong story-focus, while loading in a wide range of player choices and paths, which makes it the best Bioware RPG and one of the best role-playing games in years despite the flaws.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
In my opinion, of course. I was never a huge fan of the BG series. Action adventure games with adjustable stats.

sgc_meltdown said:
Are you referring to perhaps MoTB's differences in managing your curse, the good or evil paths being the choice (I really can't think of a handy parallel to that right now), or something like siding with a thieves faction for a core quest and locking out the fighter's faction quest path, leading to more stealth orientated tasks?
I'm referring to anything that modifies the gameplay content.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
commie said:
Jaesun said:
commie said:
Am I the only one that is apprehensive knowing that AoD is being made by the same person who thinks DA:O is one of the greatest RPG's of all time?

Where has VD ever stated that?

Well I may have exaggerated a bit, but he certainly finds enough facets of DA:O to have been superior to most other RPG's released since a decade ago to make it more than a little unsettling.

the world within these constraints of generic fantasy is very well designed and polished, and if you let it, will surprise you with its depth and the quality of its "unique takes and variants on some old familiar standards".

Role-playing (i.e. the ability to make decisions that affect both the player and the world around him) is the strongest and most enjoyable aspect of the game. Dragon Age does a better job of providing these options than any previous Bioware game, in fact any RPG since Arcanum, and rarely misses a chance to present you with an interesting choice to consider.

Bioware has managed to improve and evolve that design significantly, keeping the strong story-focus, while loading in a wide range of player choices and paths, which makes it the best Bioware RPG and one of the best role-playing games in years despite the flaws.
Since we're quoting my review:

"When you finally reach the heart of the castle and the root cause of Redcliffe's troubles, you get presented with a problem that does a great job of illustrating one of the core foundations of the setting lore, that magic is a dangerous tool in the hands of the unprepared. The Arl's son was born with magical talents, you see. By law, he should have been sent off to the Circle for training, possibly death if he failed their tests. The Arl would have done his duty but his wife hid her son's abilities from him, secretly hired a tutor to train him in using and concealing them. What she didn't know was that this tutor was a blood mage, and hired by another to poison the Arl. When her husband gets sick she turns to her religious faith to seek a cure, but the boy takes a different path. With a child's naive desperation to save his father, he makes a deal with a powerful Desire Demon to save his life. But, in the process, the demon takes possession of his mind and soul, and leaves the father alive but unconscious. This demon then runs amok, using its power to slay the living and animate them as the undead, holding a mockery of a court in the castle.

This then, is the danger the lore speaks of: How even someone with good intentions can make a mistake when manipulating magic that can have disastrous consequences. That though the laws of the Circle and Chantry may seem harsh, they exist for good reason. The boy's mother may have only wanted to protect her child, but her choices brought doom on her family and people.

So now, depending on our choices up to this point, we're presented with 2 options on how to resolve the situation:

1) The simplest option is just to kill the boy.
2) Go into the Fade and challenge the demon for control of the boy's soul.

However, the second option is itself made up of many options, in fact it is possible to cut it off completely. To access the fade you need powerful magic, beyond a single mage. The imprisoned Blood Mage - if he's still around - can aid you with his blood magic, but only at the cost of someone's life. That someone being the mother, who chooses to sacrifice herself to save her son. Alternatively, you can go to the Circle of Magi for help, they have lyrium they can use to open the path to the Fade. However, depending on how you handle the Circle quests, the Circle may not exist to help you anymore. So it's possible, should you have destroyed the Circle and the blood mage, to have completely cut off that option. So:

1) Use Blood Magic to travel to the Fade, killing the mother in the process.
2) Go to the Circle for help, should they still exist.

Not only do you get to choose how to access the fade, you get to choose which mage goes in. If you're playing a mage, you can go. If you have a mage in the party, say Morrigan, they can go in. And if you got the Circle to help, you can convince the Archmagister to go in, since he owes you a favor. But the options don't stop there! Once in the fade, you face off with the Desire Demon. But, like all good demons of seduction, she attempts to bargain, to seduce. You can fight her for the boy, sure. But you can also convince her to leave him without a fight, if you're good at intimidation. She also attempts to offer you something in exchange for leaving her with control of the boy's soul. She'll make it look like she has left for a few years, long enough for you to resolve whatever you need to resolve. And in exchange, she will give you a... favour. If you're good enough at intimidation, you can convince her to leave the boy AND give you a favour, just for showing mercy in not destroying her. So your options at this point are:

1) Fight and kill the demon.
2) Intimidate her into leaving if you have the skill.
3) Let her keep the boy, but lay low for a few years, in exchange for either the secrets of Blood Magic, a talent point or even sex (she is a desire demon, after all).
4) As 3, but permanently surrendering the boy, if you have a high enough Coercion skill.

So, at every stage of this questline we see opportunity for choices with consequences, choices tied both to character skills and previous choices within the game (interconnected quests are a trademark of design excellence). The evil options are presented well, you aren't simply being evil for the sake of kicking sand in people's faces, you are given choices which appeal to opportunism and self-interest, not simple bullying."

This is the best fucking design I've EVER seen in an RPG. If someone disagrees, I'd like to see an example of a better quest.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
commie said:
Am I the only one that is apprehensive knowing that AoD is being made by the same person who thinks DA:O is one of the greatest RPG's of all time?
Does he?
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
Maybe I came across as purposely obtuse. Gameplay is yet another of those nebulous industry terms like 'emotional engagement' to me, so I was trying to suss out what exactly was being referred to. Let's just call it the interactive portions of a game for now.

So you probably mean a change in the interactions available. That still leaves a fairly broad spectrum that you might be potentially referring to. Again, using an example here, by modifying interactive content are you referring to a type of choice that if you

Take path A - > Action gameplay sequence
Take path B - > Puzzle gameplay sequence
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Gameplay content - quests, characters, locations, factions, paths, etc.
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
1) Choices specific to different skill builds for a particular quest(to accomodate different characters, your first example), different skills used to open up the same path, though I think this is more about not taking away choices than giving them

2) Quest related choice, where you choose the quest and method by which your character fulfills the goal, different pathing according to quest, same consequences (second example)

----

3) Choices with immediate consequences.

4) Choices with consequences on the ending.


Deliberately or not, there's a seperation in the middle there with the former two being about the process of giving choice and the latter two being about implementing the consequences of choice. I think it was this along with your leading in statement that these were the type of choices that threw me off.


What do you think, Volourn?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Examples:

1) Instead of fighting your way through, you find a way to sneak in. Consequences aren't required.

2) Same as 1 but on a larger scale. Let's say that instead of winning the race to save Bastila and jumping through all the above mentioned hoops, the game lets you find out where Bastila is being kept and attack the place. Consequences are desired but not mandatory. For example, the direct assault path doesn't have to have consequences but it would be nice if there was a risk of Bastila dying, while the race was a risk-free way.

3) you join faction A and now faction B is hostile, or you decide to kill NPC A and now his gameplay content (quests, solutions, info) is gone with him. The consequences are in-built.

4) Same as 3 but on the global scale. You didn't just join faction A but made it a top faction by making a series of decisions. You have to explain what the player's choices amounted to, i.e.:

"Hot-headed to the end, Sheriff Meyers choose to oppose Caesar's takeover of Primm with a standoff. Though the citizens take out a few Legionaries, the town quickly falls to Caesar, its citizens utterly wiped out."
 

sgc_meltdown

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
6,000
Yeah, I saw your first point there as a granular subset of the second's options, having no defined consequence because the nature of the quest you're using that skill in sets the consequence in stone i.e. Bastila is rescued with either quest.

Then there are possible rippling nuances and interrelations in between these categories, since Bastila's rescue could very well have improved your reputation with a faction and opened up their content(gameplay consequences 3).

The furthest reaching final results as 4, when you made choice 3, reached or approached nearer to with choice 2, where you decided the method with by choice 1. Or the causal chain can stop anywhere in between.

As far as I have heard you have aimed to go this far with Age of Decadence. I know this discussion with a developer isn't exactly typical on the bioware or bethesda forums.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom