It's more about a feeling for me than about the actual enjoyment of reading stuff...
[...]
Hm, I think there is a great difference between the Bioware of BG2 and the Bioware of Dragon Age/ Mass effect, for once. But I think you either misunderstood what I was trying to say or I wasn't able to make my point clear enough. I agree that maybe your actions in D:OS have more actual impact. But that's not what I critizie
d here. I critized the lack of possibilites for actual role playing. Let's take for example the co-op dialogues. In the current state of the beta you have to choose between two answers, both extreme positions. This actually destroys roleplaying because your have to take one of these extreme positions even if it doesn't fit your character and the way you want to play. So maybe those are two different levels of player agency. The first, which is quite good in D:OS, about what you can actually do and influence, and the second, which is lacking in D:OS, about how you can roleplay your character.I agree that games like Ultima VII and D:OS have their focus on the first one, interactivty and influencing and changing the world like you want. Bioware games usually have a focus on the latter one with a quite "solid and unchangable environment" but pretty strong options to roleplay a character. I think it's maybe even two distinctive way of game design: a more linear, emotional approach like in Bioware games and a more sand-boxy, open approach like in a game like D:OS.
Well, I do admit that I'm quite a fan of Bioware games (though I think that BG 2 was the top and they slowly decayed after...) and I somehow miss the depth or role-playing the the richness of dialogue. To each their own I guess.
I guess this is where we diverge the most. I did enjoy some Bioware games myself, but this is one design philosophy/goal for which I strongly stand on Larian's side : I don't care of roleplaying options that don't actually have any impact in the game, because, as far as I'm concerned, those are not roleplaying opportunities.
I see no value in "roleplaying" something that's only for you, something that the game world or other characters will never acknowledge (something that some slightly less friendly posters on some slightly less friendly forum might call "larping"). I can see how it can seem appealing to some and how it can add some flavor to their game experience, but I'd rather see Larian focusing on polishing quests & dialogues with already existing, actual variable outcomes than divert resources to implementing new things like that.
Well, I know that opinions vary on this point by a great margin. It all depends on how you role play and what you personally expect from an RPG.
Personally, I don't see games, especially RPGs, as "games-by-systems". I see RPGs mostly as emotional experiences. Giving me the illusion of choice indeed changes the way I feel in games.
Example:
1) Game A gives me only two answer possibilites: one extremely positive one and one extremely negatie one. Both answers result in different story branches or outcomes.
2) Game B gives me four answer possibilities: one extremely positive, one moderately positve, one moderately negative, one extremely negative. Both the positive answers and both the negative answers result in different story branches or outcomes (the only difference between each of the two is a slightly divergent answer to match the tone of your own reply).
Some people (like you I guess, correct me if not) would now argue that game B is cheating and that there is no reason for two distinct positive or negative answers to exist because they both result in the same story branch or outcome. I can partly understand that opinion although I don't share it. It seems that you don't play the game to "play a role for yourself" but to explore what the game has to offer in systems and possibilities. For me, on the opposite, there is a great difference and I would always prefer game B (if well constructed/written). The reason is quite simple: if I can only choose between two extreme answers but none of these feel correct for what I personally think (or my roleplaying avatar should think...) I "fell out of character" which results in an instant break of immersion. But even before I have a better experience with more options available to choose from. I don't care if the results are the same (why even should I if I don't know the answer?), I care about what COULD happen with taking different answers.
Apart from Bioware games maybe Telltale's games are the best example for almost perfect illusion of choice. Let's take Walking Dead. Most people love the game because it causes them to make decisions, decisions with more or less tragic outcomes. The players know that so each decision causes a moral dilemma for some, thinking about the possible outcomes and feeling responsible for their actions. But again behind the curtain the differences aren't that big no matter which answer you choose. The system kind of betrays you but it never directly affects you because the illusion is just working. Some people though can't feel that moral dilemma of choice (I have talked with quite some of them). They care more for the systems and real outcomes than for the direct decisions presented. They feel cheated if the outcome stays the same, reviewing the action from the end, for whatever reason.
Maybe you could enlighten me what your main concern with games like that is? I try to understand it but I don't really get it. What is the problem with illusion of choice for you? You said that you don't care for "roleplaying [...] that's only for you". Why? I mean, don't you play for yourself and your own experience, at least in single player? For whom do you play if you don't care that much about the roleplaying aspects for yourself? Did I misunderstand you here?
