The Witcher Officialsky Witcherovda 2 Impressiovna Threadskaia

[SuicideBunny]

Okku/OoM serve only as HP, DMG and HIT, and occasionly add some flavour text.

so, no game ever made has had any c&c other than completely fucking up your character build and being unable to finish the game or not?

 

[Metro]

C&C was never a strong point in the first Witcher so it's no surprise that it isn't particularly strong in the sequel. Plenty of choices, yes. Not so many consequences, though. They're ARPGs with good stories -- mostly due to the strength of the background material.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But it's still insignificant. Who needs one more way to deal with Myrkul or yet another soul devourer ability?

How's that insignificant? You arbitrarily decide that there is no need for those, but C&C is about closing some doors and opening others.

I't insignificant because it doesn't change the gameplay. It's like choosing weapon A or B as a reward for a quest.

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

Either you just don't get it, in which case trying to explain is a waste of time, or you see absolutely no value in multiple quest solutions and paths, in which case, why are you arguing? Nobody's saying that the Witcher 2 is a bad game.

Does getting Okku/OoM changes the fact that you MUST get to the magic university, get a silver blade, go to Kelemvor's city, fight for him or against him (which doesn't really matter, because in the end you have to...), talk to him politely, beat something and end the game?

Every game has some key story progression points. It's how the game handles gameplay between these points that counts.

For VD C&C are C&C when you get stuff like special powers, items, powers and shit. When somebody dies... who gives a shit! :O Gameplay! Fuck the plot!

When key characters die, it matters because it affects gameplay. When some no-name "characters" die to make you feel sad because someone died, well...

Did you like Alpha Protocol, by any chance? So many choices and consequences... Best game evar.

Can't play it and devs don't seem eager to patch it.
You still hide behind the finger and don't really answer anything.

My point was that Alpha Protocol was full of choices and consequences you mentioned, yet the game is considered shit. I wonder why.

For example:

Killing the guards in a dungeon and getting out is the same as having an npc distracting them so you can escape without fight?

http://alphaprotocol.wikia.com/wiki/Investigate_Ruins_Transmission
"If you executed Shaheed and/or have a hostile relationship with him, you will not have the option to warn him in advance, and the Al-Samad terrorists will be hostile. "

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't think anyone will argue Witcher 2 has C&Cs which match the strength of those found in MotB or the Fallout series. The point we are trying to make to you is that Witcher 2 is a more story-driven game. In MotB you were able to decide what kind of character you were, everything from race to class to good and evil. In Witcher 2 you play, surprise, a witcher.

And? MotB's choices had absolutely nothing to do with your gender and class. It's a very story-driven game. Anyway, my original point was that TW2's c&c are weak (not that the game is bad). You're saying now that they won't match the strength of those found in Fallout and MotB. It appears that we're in agreement. Yes/No?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Like what? How does this choice affect the game? How does the info change your understanding of the events or unlock something in the future. Basically, if you're saying that this choice affects more than the color of the shirt, will you kindly elaborate?

It affects your view of Shilard. He basically helps you in a kind of bro-like manner. I went through the game viewing him as a bastard and thus was not surprised later on, but I hadn't had him assist me.

Would it be fair to file it under flavor then? If not, why?

More specifically? How do different choices affect the gameplay? I agree that unlike most quests, it's a quest with decent multiple solutions (praise the lord), but does it go beyond that?

You receive a reward from the two dudes if you spare them.

sigh

Can we not agree, for the sake of wasting less time, that a fucking reward is not a good example of consequences of you saving someone?

How do these choices affect the gameplay? What do they change?

They don't, but neither does ANY of Dragon Age's. And that's my only claim; that TW2's outdoes DA's by having more C&C that's better contextualised and more complex. I've noted that through 3 posts now

The choices in DA that I praised in my review are multiple quest solutions. What you describe are minor, meaningless options that don't affect quests at all and don't add different solutions.

For example, if you peak through the window, you see that the sorceress is talking to the commandant. It appears that she's a scheming character that has some dealings with him. It's nothing, even less than a flavor. I wouldn't even call it an insight into her character.

There is a difference between better reward and different reward. And again, please explain your praise of DA's C&C in the same breath you use to criticize TW2's.

Read my review. See what I praised. Compare it to TW2's choices in the first half of the game (can't speak for the second half). Yeah, the fork is great, but the game is linear so far and doesn't offer many meaningful choices that would actually affect anything. You don't decide much in the game, starting with where to go next.

Indeed. And it's free for all so I guess you have it?

I don't.

It's the same shit as saving some people in prologue and getting a reward from them in chapter 1. It's a delayed reward, not a consequence.

If you don't help the dwarf, you don't get anything. Furthermore, if you don't help Iorveth, you don't get it. As such, it's a reward that comes as a consequnce of multiple choices.

Rewards are not consequences, otherwise Bioware would have been the c&c pioneer. What else you've got?

*sigh* And how do these amazing options affect the gameplay?

FFS HOW DOES DRAGON AGE'S FFS ??? [/volourn]

I have NEVER claimed that TW2's C&C is particularly gameplay-impacting. Please answer my arguments - not those you percieve that I have made.

You haven't?

"TW2's story-impacting C&C is more plenty and more, well, impacting."

Changed your mind so soon?

Other spoilers: You left some. Amongst those a really good one with trolls and mercernaries.

I left out those I haven't seen and thus can't comment on.

The point I made 10 pages ago was that anyone (I even named you) who jumped to defend Dragon Age's C&C (as I did too) would be a hypocrit if they did not extend the same courtesey to TW2. Because for some reason I sensed you wouldn't. And I still cannot fathom why.

Because so far the game is very linear. If I were to replay the game and side with Roche again, I'll be jumping through the exactly same hoops in the prologue and the next 2 chapters. There are very few things I can do differently. Far less than in Dragon Age, although the Witcher 2 is, without a doubt, a much better game.

Did you like Alpha Protocol, by any chance? So many choices and consequences... Best game evar.

How 'herp derp' of you VD

You missed the point. Alpha Protocol has more choices and consequences than Dragon Age and Witcher combined. Yet it's not considered a good game around these parts. Can you tell me why?

 

[made]

Just finished the game. The ending was good, but, wow, no wonder why many people dislike it, there is no way someone can understand what are they talking about without reading the books.

Which part exactly? The ending made perfect sense to me. Only things I had to google were Ciri/Yennefer because I wanted some background info, but maybe the journal explains who they are, I didn't read all entries.

 

[flushfire]

Not trying to argue here, I'd just like to be enlightened. Can someone please clear these up for me?
1. Why is/are chapter altering decision/s in TW2 called a fork and in MotB it is not? Is choosing Okku over OoM or vice versa not a fork?
2. There are dialogue/decisions in TW2 that when chosen differently may result in a sidequest not being available entirely. How does this not affect gameplay?
3. Why are these:

So fighting villagers in a riot is the same as running through a peaceful village?
Getting to the barge while pretending Iorveth is a prisoner is the same as directly attacking it?
Killing the guards in a dungeon and getting out is the same as having an npc distracting them so you can escape without fight?

instantly dismissed? Sure, they may not be entire game lasting, and all three are the combat/no combat variety, but is that not different gameplay?
4. Going back to my first question, I don't remember much of MotB it's been so long, but if we consider Okku/OoM & accepting/rejecting being a spirit-eater as forks, what other gameplay altering C&C are there?
TIA

 

[FatCat]

Just finished the game. The ending was good, but, wow, no wonder why many people dislike it, there is no way someone can understand what are they talking about without reading the books.

Which part exactly? The ending made perfect sense to me. Only things I had to google were Ciri/Yennefer because I wanted some background info, but maybe the journal explains who they are, I didn't read all entries.

Go read the books ffs , i heard that German translation is good , there is no better low fantasy.

Journal doesn't explain a shit , those who are unfamiliarly with the books are left in complete mist , that's why ppl complain about the ending , nor do they know about Nilfgaardian war or anything like that.

 

[Crooked Bee]

I think we can all agree that C&C doesn't exist.

Meaningful Choices and Consequence do exist as alternative routes through the game, Devil Survivor-style. The Witcher 2 doesn't seem to live up to that since, from what I've heard, there are no alternative routes through Act 3, only through Act 2, but it's still a major progress compared to other western RPGs. (That's the only positive thing I can say about it, really, as I quit the game midway through Act 2 out of boredom.)

Another example of meaningful C&C is fucking up your build or item management and not being able to finish the game / getting a bad ending, which encourages you to approach the gameplay more thoughtfully next time. Dunno if that applies to the Witcher 2, probably not.

Yet another, less meaningful but still nice example is the skills you've invested in impacting the gameplay style needed to beat the game and closing off some routes / quests / outcomes. Think Darklands or (hopefully) Age of Decadence. On the other hand, this probably belongs not to C&C but to multiple quest solutions. Again, if your character isn't good at anything (i.e., if you've fucked up your character build), that should prevent you from getting the good ending / beating the game.

tl;dr dunno why I'm posting this

 

[Storyfag]

I think we can all agree that C&C doesn't exist.

Meaningful Choices and Consequence do exist as alternative routes through the game, Devil Survivor-style. The Witcher 2 doesn't seem to live up to that since, from what I've heard, there are no alternative routes through Act 3, only through Act 2

You heard lies then. Act 3 plays out completely different, depending on your choice in Act 1

Spoiler

between Roche and Iorveth, leading to a set of completely different quests

, your choices in Act 2

Spoiler

slaying or sparing a king who's men will bay for your blood or not

and on a choice in TW1

Spoiler

Knights of the Flaming Rose policing the city in Act 3 will be friendly if you made Siegfried of Denesle the new Grand Master

 

[Mrowak]

I think we can all agree that C&C doesn't exist.

Meaningful Choices and Consequence do exist as alternative routes through the game, Devil Survivor-style. The Witcher 2 doesn't seem to live up to that since, from what I've heard, there are no alternative routes through Act 3, only through Act 2, but it's still a major progress compared to other western RPGs. (That's the only positive thing I can say about it, really, as I quit the game midway through Act 2 out of boredom.)

Another example of meaningful C&C is fucking up your build or item management and not being able to finish the game / getting a bad ending, which encourages you to approach the gameplay more thoughtfully next time. Dunno if that applies to the Witcher 2, probably not.

Yet another, less meaningful but still nice example is the skills you've invested in impacting the gameplay style needed to beat the game and closing off some routes / quests / outcomes. Think Darklands or (hopefully) Age of Decadence. On the other hand, this probably belongs not to C&C but to multiple quest solutions. Again, if your character isn't good at anything (i.e., if you've fucked up your character build), that should prevent you from getting the good ending / beating the game.

tl;dr dunno why I'm posting this

I will have to concede that C&C in the Witcher 2 strikes as being of lesser inport than in some less known jRPGs. The Devil Survivor series is one of the examples. Sengoku Rance is another

However, where the game should get the praise is the way those choices are contextualised. The authors at least make an attempt to make the choices meaningful and logical in the context of the setting. This being supported by logical storyline, and characters with motivations actually making some sense (as in not 'I am full of angst, so I will destroy the world' or 'Gahahahaha!!!') makes TW2 clearly a special game unfortunately unparalled by anything the Japanese ever produced.

About skills impacting the gameplay - as VD said TW2 is too story-driven for that. If you can block any quests is always more due to your ineptness in investigating than anything else e.g. you believe a witness without checking his alibi - you fuck up the quest. Moreover, I can't say there are any good/bad endings there. This is partially because the game rejects this dychotomy and forces you to choose between two or more 'lesser evils'. Hence, some surprising variations occur. Whatever is choose, however, it's never going to be the 'good' ending. You will always antagonise some.

About builds affecting gameplay. Because of the game's actiony nature I think someone with sufficient massochistic instincts and mad powergaming skillz can beat the game withound spending a single point in your char. That said you could do the same playing Fallout 2 or FF9 from what I hear.

Still, on my first playthrough I made the heroe swords/magic specialist. It was a perfect combo for mobs - it let me go through them like through grass, However, I kept raging uncontrollably during boss-fights, especially one of the finals. In my second game I made swords/alchemist mix. I raged at how hard fighting with common goons was. But, the boss-fight that I wasted 20 mins of my life previously (that is not counting the times I was reduced into mincemeat) lasted me here maybe 1.30 min.

 

[made]

Just finished the game. The ending was good, but, wow, no wonder why many people dislike it, there is no way someone can understand what are they talking about without reading the books.

Which part exactly? The ending made perfect sense to me. Only things I had to google were Ciri/Yennefer because I wanted some background info, but maybe the journal explains who they are, I didn't read all entries.

Go read the books ffs , i heard that German translation is good , there is no better low fantasy.

Journal doesn't explain a shit , those who are unfamiliarly with the books are left in complete mist , that's why ppl complain about the ending , nor do they know about Nilfgaardian war or anything like that.

I like to think that my Polish is good enough that I could read the originals if I really wanted to, but chances are I wouldn't enjoy the games quite as much if I had the whole picture.
Does it really have to be spelled out what Nilfgaard is, or Geralt's connection to the emperor, or what the mages are really up to for the game to make sense? I prefer to make do with what the characters in the game tell me from their pov and piece together the rest myself - keeps the story mysterious. And there's always the wiki as a last resort...
Now people also complain that the game has a cliffhanger ending - wtf? Should Geralt ride into the sunset with Yennefer by his side at the end so we may call it a satisfying conclusion?

 

[Mrowak]

Just finished the game. The ending was good, but, wow, no wonder why many people dislike it, there is no way someone can understand what are they talking about without reading the books.

Which part exactly? The ending made perfect sense to me. Only things I had to google were Ciri/Yennefer because I wanted some background info, but maybe the journal explains who they are, I didn't read all entries.

Go read the books ffs , i heard that German translation is good , there is no better low fantasy.

Journal doesn't explain a shit , those who are unfamiliarly with the books are left in complete mist , that's why ppl complain about the ending , nor do they know about Nilfgaardian war or anything like that.

I like to think that my Polish is good enough that I could read the originals if I really wanted to, but chances are I wouldn't enjoy the games quite as much if I had the whole picture.
Does it really have to be spelled out what Nilfgaard is, or Geralt's connection to the emperor, or what the mages are really up to for the game to make sense? I prefer to make do with what the characters in the game tell me from their pov and piece together the rest myself - keeps the story mysterious. And there's always the wiki as a last resort...

Well, you are partially right about that I must say, though in my case the complaints I have about the game stem from it never quite reaching the levels of polish (hurr hurr) known from the novels. I will also repeat myself but I feel that the way your past is reveal in game i.e. flashbacks disconected from what you are doing take away a lot of mystery. I would like to explore Geralt's past myself - not be told about it.

Now people also complain that the game has a cliffhanger ending - wtf? Should Geralt ride into the sunset with Yennefer by his side at the end so we may call it a satisfying conclusion?

The game ends with a cliffhanger. Period. You are clearly in the middle of events, You make the choices till the very end but you are not allowed to see their resolutions - not even in a form of a slideshow. From the story perspective the ending seems to be cut in half. Moreover the fact that Letho comes and just like that tells about his motivations. Again, a huge portion of investigation was taken away from you. You are not that involved in getting into mystery. You are being explained it just like that. If you could do that there would be some natural tension before the final confrontation. As it was... it was just disappointing.

Furthermore, it worries me that in the third installment the choices you've made may be of minimal significance - in the same way the choices from TW1 carried on. That would be a betrayal.

 

[Black_Willow]

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

"Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game" which lead to the same outcome are pretty much the same as diferent weapons - they may change the gameplay, but to a VERY limited degree.

Every game has some key story progression points. It's how the game handles gameplay between these points that counts.

Now that's just some appologist bullshit.

 

[made]

@Mrowak

That's not my understanding of what "cliffhanger" means. There is no immediate danger to any of the main characters, there's no last-minute revelation that makes you go "OMG WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?!" Letho sufficiently explains in his lengthy dialogue (too lengthy, yes, this is where the "show, don't tell" mantra would actually apply) what happened during the game and why. There are questions left unanswered, yes: so what's up with Yennefer, what will Nilfgaard do, how will the political landscape change... but that's just a continuation of the background story that can wait until the sequel. I'm certainly not waiting with bated breath for the DLC/expansion.

"it worries me that in the third installment the choices you've made may be of minimal significance - in the same way the choices from TW1 carried on. That would be a betrayal."
I only see two possibilities with these linear, story-focused games that offer multiple endings: largely ignore the consequences and move the sequel to a new area (ie. Nilfgaard), or pick one as canon and go with that. Better ideas?

 

[relootz]

the boss fights are mostly awful though, i am fighting the dragon and its really not well designed at all...

 

[Grunker]

You haven't?

"TW2's story-impacting C&C is more plenty and more, well, impacting."

Changed your mind so soon?

I high-lighted the important bit there for you mate.

Let's see what you praise..:

For example, you learn the Arcane Warrior specialization for your mage from an ancient spirit, locked in a phylactery (assuming you find it, of course). At some point the spirit offers to share his memories with you. If you accept, you learn from his memories (how very Torment) and unlock the specialization. To get the Reaver specialization, you must make a hard choice, which may not fit your character.

Ah, so reward/no-reward? There is no consequence for not learning the Arcane Warrior specialization. It is EXACTLY the same as declining a reward for no fucking reason. The urn choice is only hard in your LARPing head mate. It's not hard in terms of gameplay.

I pretty much agree completely with regards to the beginning of Redcliffe-questline (the defend the city-stuff), which was a good example of A technically well-designed quest (too bad it wasn't that well contextualized because of poor writing, really). However, what you fail to mention in the review is that Redcliffe stands out as a singleton in Dragon Age, just as the incredible fork in the Witcher - which is much more impacting than the few choices you make during Redcliffe.

What Dragon Age lacks, then, is all the story-impacting stuff I've told you about in the beginning. It has some, but there is a) less of it and b) what there is is not as well written.

I left out those I haven't seen and thus can't comment on.

Which is precisely why I think having this discussion when you haven't even finished the game is kindda stupid.

You missed the point. Alpha Protocol has more choices and consequences than Dragon Age and Witcher combined. Yet it's not considered a good game around these parts. Can you tell me why?

I did miss the point, you arrogant son of a bitch :D

Alpha Protocol sucks because C&C is the sole thing it does right. But did I say you were a hypocrite for praising DA and not TW2 in general? No. I'm only speaking about C&C. Though that hardly matters since we seem to agree that TW2 is the better game, despite having horrible combat if compared to DA. Funny, really.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You haven't?

"TW2's story-impacting C&C is more plenty and more, well, impacting."

Changed your mind so soon?

I high-lighted the important bit there for you mate.

Alright, then we have no argument.

Let's see what you praise..:

For example, you learn the Arcane Warrior specialization for your mage from an ancient spirit, locked in a phylactery (assuming you find it, of course). At some point the spirit offers to share his memories with you. If you accept, you learn from his memories (how very Torment) and unlock the specialization. To get the Reaver specialization, you must make a hard choice, which may not fit your character.

Ah, so reward/no-reward? There is no consequence for not learning the Arcane Warrior specialization. It is EXACTLY the same as declining a reward for no fucking reason. The urn choice is only hard in your LARPing head mate. It's not hard in terms of gameplay.

I said "which MAY not fit your character". My turn to highlight shit for you? And let's be clear, "reward" in our conversation, refers to money and items. Class specialization is something completely different. No, there is no consequence for not learning the AW specialization, unless you want to play one. And in case you didn't notice, what you quoted is not from the "quest design" chapter. I was talking about the character system there.

What Dragon Age lacks, then, is all the story-impacting stuff I've told you about in the beginning. It has some, but there is a) less of it and b) what there is is not as well written.

I agree.

Which is precisely why I think having this discussion when you haven't even finished the game is kindda stupid.

Kinda.

Alpha Protocol sucks because C&C is the sole thing it does right.

Does it now? The problem is that every mission is the same. The flow of the game is the same. Take that transmission in the ruins mission. Is there any fucking difference if some guards are hostile (if you have dealings with their boss) or not? Sometimes the guards are better equipped or tougher based on your choices, sometimes your allies are these guys, sometimes those guys. Any real difference? Any impact on gameplay? None.

SO FAR it's very close to the Witcher 2 setup. The flow is unchanged. Like I said, if I replay the game and side with Roche again, I'll jump through the same hoops in the prologue and the first 2 chapters.

But did I say you were a hypocrite for praising DA and not TW2 in general? No. I'm only speaking about C&C.

And? Did you call me a hypocrite for criticizing DA2? It too has more choices and consequences than either DA or TW2. Tons. You can choose whom to work for at the beginning which has minor consequences (if it was in the Witcher 2 the reaction would have been semi-orgasmic), you can spare a man you were sent to kill by the mercs, some quests have several outcomes based on what you did like saving that elven kid in the dreamstate, there are tons of fucking choices when it comes to templars vs mages, there is your sister's fate, etc.

Same as with AP. It's not that it's the only thing they did right, it's that they did it wrong. And TW2 design is a lot closer to AP and DA2 than to DA, for example.

 

[Grunker]

And let's be clear, "reward" in our conversation, refers to money and items. Class specialization is something completely different.

That's bullshit. There's no reason whatsoever to not unlock the specialization.

The problem is that every mission is the same

I don't agree. Games that have similar quest-structures can be very good in other areas. Alpha Protocol isn't.

We seem to agree on most of the other stuff about now. I can't really discuss DA2 with you. I gave up on the game half-way through (which I very rarely do), so I don't know that much about its intricacies.

Though I agree that TW2 will automatically be applauded more at the Codex for its successes than DA2, it's a huge strawman in a discussion between the two of us. I very nearly loved Dragon Age, so I was fairly sure I would enjoy DA2 also. I gave it more than a fair chance to enthrall me. As such, I'm hardly in the category of people that auto-criticize Dragon Age and auto-applaud the Witcher.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

"Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game" which lead to the same outcome are pretty much the same as diferent weapons - they may change the gameplay, but to a VERY limited degree.

They allow you to play a game differently, by making different choices.

Every game has some key story progression points. It's how the game handles gameplay between these points that counts.

Now that's just some appologist bullshit.

Every game has fixed story progression points. Even sandbox games with non-linear main quest like Daggerfall. Even Arcanum, one of the most non-linear games I've played. This is not some apologist bullshit. It's a fact.

What counts is the spacing between the key points (very, very tight in TW2), the sequence (is it fixed or does the game allow you to do them in any order, letting you decide what to do next), and whether or not there are multiple quest solutions to go through the game differently.

 

[Black_Willow]

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

"Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game" which lead to the same outcome are pretty much the same as diferent weapons - they may change the gameplay, but to a VERY limited degree.

They allow you to play a game differently, by making different choices.

Or use a different sword

 

[Vault Dweller]

And let's be clear, "reward" in our conversation, refers to money and items. Class specialization is something completely different.

That's bullshit. There's no reason whatsoever to not unlock the specialization.

Which one? Arcane Warrior? No, there is no reason if you play a mage. Reaver? If you played as a good, paladin-like character, then it would be munchkin-silly to change your play style just because you can unlock something.

I don't agree. Games that have similar quest-structures can be very good in other areas. Alpha Protocol isn't.

Because?

We seem to agree on most of the other stuff about now. I can't really discuss DA2 with you. I gave up on the game half-way through (which I very rarely do), so I don't know that much about its intricacies.

If you like them narrative choices, you're missing out, mate. Big time.

Though I agree that TW2 will automatically be applauded more at the Codex for its successes than DA2, it's a huge strawman in a discussion between the two of us. I very nearly loved Dragon Age, so I was fairly sure I would enjoy DA2 also. I gave it more than a fair chance to enthrall me. As such, I'm hardly in the category of people that auto-criticize Dragon Age and auto-applaud the Witcher.

My comment wasn't aimed at you. You're a bro, Grunker.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

"Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game" which lead to the same outcome are pretty much the same as diferent weapons - they may change the gameplay, but to a VERY limited degree.

They allow you to play a game differently, by making different choices.

Or use a different sword

Right. A different sword. Or a different spells. Oblivion is my favourite game. I can use a sword or a spell or a sword AND a spell. I get fucking dizzy thinking of the possibilities.

 

[Grunker]

Which one? Arcane Warrior? No, there is no reason if you play a mage. Reaver? If you played as a good, paladin-like character, then it would be munchkin-silly to change your play style just because you can unlock something.

AKA LARPing. I thought the trick was to implement story- and gameplay consequences to all choices so to avoid LARPing (I'm picturing myself as a paladin, so even though the game doesn't care, I won't unlock Reaver).

Because?

The shooting action was Mass Effect 2's horrible, twisted child, the story was banalshitboring (seriously, a corporation trying to instigate a war and they're even all "what is he trying? Hmm I wonder"). I don't think AP is bad, mind you, just mediocre.

If you like them narrative choices, you're missing out, mate. Big time.

I like them a bunch if I care about the story and the characters. I didn't at all in DA2.

My comment wasn't aimed at you. You're a bro, Grunker.

Well, same to you. Though you annoy the fuck outta me sometimes.

 

[Black_Willow]

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

"Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game" which lead to the same outcome are pretty much the same as diferent weapons - they may change the gameplay, but to a VERY limited degree.

They allow you to play a game differently, by making different choices.

Or use a different sword

Right. A different sword. Or a different spells

Or a different soul devouring ability.

EDIT
Or a different arcane warrior/reaver ability.