Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Lets talk about Romance, the Birds and the Bees

Something like that was done in Dragon Age: Inquisition ...
I loved that detail. :3

Little shame is that things like this are untranslatable in my language.
Bcs czech make lots of differences in both written and spoken sentences, depending on if person you are talking about (and sometimes to) is male, or female.

I think Dragon Age did it much better than Mass Effect, but we still got stories that avoid where possible the events of the original games. Inquisition resets Dragon Age II, and Dragon Age II is a side-quel. And it looks like Dragon Age IV will be even less connected to them.

Honestly I like that aspect of Dragon Age a lot and think it's a feature, not a bug. Each game is its own story that's influenced by the prior game but not truly a sequel to it. It gives them a lot more freedom not just in story, but in their ability to explore the setting. Plus I do love getting to meet a new cast of companions each game, with maybe a few returning faces.

Anything that reminds me that there are no real choices in a game about making choices, is something you should try to avoid.

Thinking about it more, I think Mass Effect had better companion continuity, and Dragon Age had better story continuity, but for both, most of the choices made in the previous game are taken care of with expository dialogue explaining why both paths led to the same outcome. Garrus went rogue on Omega, either because he learned from Shepard that being a badass suicide cop was the only way to get things done, or he went rogue, because after trying to change things from the inside as a boring art-cop, he gave up went to Omega. I think Garrus is one of the better companions in ME, he has a multipart character arc that spans multiple games, but that stuff still happens.

Of course these are all better than something like the Witcher's continuity, don't think I'd prefer that to what Bioware does. Not that I don't think the Witcher games don't have great stories, I'd say they have better choices with consequences within each game, but are totally uninterested in any continuity between games.

I believe that they ARE real choices. They let you say something about your character and the way they interact with the world. I don't feel that just because the outcome is the same in the grand scale, that makes the choice any less real, especially if in the game itself things are impacted.

Honestly I've come to believe that those sorts of things are genuinely fine and the kind of series-long reverberations we dream of just aren't posible yet. Garrus has to be on Omega for the game. They don't have the time or money to make entirely new quests for him based on your interactions in the first game, because that would reverberate through not just the rest of 2, but potentially into 3 as well. Then you have to take into account doing that for every other companion. How can they practically avoid that without either blowing open the scope of the game to ridiculous levels, or just not including Garrus at all? Or worse, never include the choice in the first place so they don't have to wrangle the possible outcomes? I find personally that the real value of choice in a game is that I'm able to express my character and roleplay in the game, regardless of how static or not the reaction is. I'd rather be able to greet someone in three different ways and get the same reaction than only greet them one way. It's why I love Wrath of the Righteous so much. In one playthrough I was able t most recent playthrough, I was so enthralled with my character I wrote out her eventual religion and place in the history of the world. That's never gonna come up in a sequel and I'm fine with that. It's better than the game deciding that I didn't make the choice I did.

Choices within that game, I'm with you. but why would I treat a choice I make in a game that resulted in the same outcome within that game, differently than a choice I made in a game that resulted in the same outcome in a different game. (unless you're making a game about the meaninglessness of your actions) I think you're really on my side here, otherwise you wouldn't say you dream of it.

Talking about time and money is a practical concern that limits the scope of a story, using it as a justification for the design of that story isn't really an excuse. Don't misunderstand me though, I'm not saying those stories aren't good because of it, I'm not saying a game isn't good without unlimited resources, I'm just talking about the friction that occurs between the illusion of choice in these games and the continuity between them. Every story requires some buy in from the audience, Garrus being on Omega didn't ruin it for me, it's just that when you start seeing it everywhere, you star seeing the invisible walls that keep the narrative on track. Creating a story where your choices with Garrus, in Mass Effect 1, had meaningful ramifications on the story of Mass Effect 2, would have required the game actually deal with the story of Mass Effect 1, instead of resetting the table, and giving us a main plotline that amounting to little more than a sidequest in the trilogy. And Mass Effect 2 is my favorite of the series.

I think we're going to be getting games that do it better and better, I think that's why the games industry is so excited by things like 'emergent gameplay' because they want systems that are able to adapt the story based on the user's input.

I'd say that I am on your side, yeah, I just don't chafe as much at the invisible wall when it's between games. I fully support games pushing harder and harder to try and get past that wall, but I don't hold it against them when they can't. And I do feel like the big, game-wide potential choices matter a bit less than being able to just make choices in general. I'm playing Marvel's Midnight Suns (loving the game by the way) and I'm certain my choices aren't actually effecting the story in a meaningful way, but they're affecting the way characters talk to me and between that and being able to just make the player character really feel like mine, I'm happy with that.

Storytelling is complicated at the best of times, and having to account for the choices of thousands of different people makes it even worse. Your comment about ME2's story makes me think about something that I've been slowly realizing about my taste in games. I think games where the plot is simpler allow for better choice and consequence, as then the game can really let you focus on your character and how they act and react to the world without the possibility of things breaking.

The thing is, with Garrus, that no matter how you approach him, more renegade, or more paragon, he was already dissatisfied with how CSec is run. I wasn't surprised to see him on Omega, no matter how hard I pushed either renegade or paragon, because it seemed like the logical conclusion for his dissatisfaction. His conversation with his superior when you first meet him on the Citadel, followed by his brief dialog with you makes that pretty clear.