I agree. I just finished my first playthrough. During the Act 1 and 2 I admired how many decisions I was given and thought, wow, I wonder what kind of story arch I end up if I do this or that. I genuinely thought that if I take a side with one group or another, that would result into a different storyline to follow and that during the next playthrough I could try another path and experience something very different. When the Act 3 was coming closer to the end it started to dawn on me that those decisions actually didn't matter. At all. That it only affects who are alive in the end and if they are your allies or not, but that you are going down the exact same main storyline anohow. And you know, I would have been perfectly fine with that (because often when you put all your effort into one storyline you can polish it to a perfection, which is a great reason for not having multiple storylines), if only I would have known that beforehand. Like, uh, why was I told that the game has insane amount of decisions that lead to different kind of endings when it just doesn't? Why wasn't I instead told that I get to experience one awesome storyline, which I can flurish with roleplaying side stories? I would have wanted to know what to expect.
The story about the tadpoles was a let-down to me. It's presented as something very important and very meaningful. Starting from the very first minute of the game you are constantly told that it's your option to use them or not. All the characters around you seem to have opinion on the matter. It's depicted as something that would enhance you, but would come with a consequence later on. I decided to not use them (I used the first one just to see what it unlocked), and during rest of the game whenever I talked to any of the companions I saw those lines which I could use to persuate them to start using them, too. So, yeah, I was pretty sure that it's important decision. But it wasn't. It didn't affect the storyline at all. So why was it there?
