Right, forgot about that one. Then again, the fact that I forgot only shows that she could simply not have been there and it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

That's a fixed bet if I ever saw one lol.

Yeah, Force Mage in DA2 was the best mage spec, hands down and the revamped Berserker was, like I said earlier, a game breaker. Spirit Warrior from DAO:A was pretty cool too. We don't even need to mention the Arcane Warrior from the first game.

That said, I'd like something new and unique or perhaps a new version of something we already saw but didn't work so well. Yes, I'm talking about Shapeshifter. Really, I wouldn't mind seeing this redone and maybe as an ability to turn your mage into a powerful melee warrior? I know that AW was the best goddamn tank in the whole DA series, but I prefer going for dmg instead of protection and AW while could be made powerful, with low attack scores the character tended to miss a lot of hits and moved slowly. When I first saw Shapeshifter in DA:O I was thinking 'oh, so we have the spider, which turns you into a mage-rogue. The bear is obviously a mage-tank. And the insects are... something. Yeah, that'll be awesome!' Needless to say, it wasn't.

DA:O did Mighty Glaciers very well. DA2 gave us glorious Glass Canons. Now we need a well done Lightning Bruiser from DA:I. (I read TVtropes sometimes)

 

But you won't. Because that's how it always goes. I could totally prove how all of your points are just total bullshit. . . buuuut I don't really feel like it.

See? Called it. Now the right to do here IS to move on... but since you're being such a bitch about it, I will do my share. Watch and see how this works.

This is you saying that you don't need to read any supplemental material because you trust Bioware to not make that sort of thing mandatory reading:

This is me responding by saying "your trust has already been broken" and linking the Omega DLC, the background and all important details of which were covered in a four-part series comic book published by Dark Horse, Mass Effect: Invasion, which explains the backstory of why this is happening, who all these characters are, why any of this matters, and why we're supposed to care. It also contains by far the lion's share of character development for literally everyone in this DLC who matters, including Aria, who has had very little characterization in the Mass Effect series, and the new character Oleg Petrovsky, who literally has zero character development outside the comic book, and literally requires you to read it in order to understand anything about who he is, what he's doing this, or what his actual motives really are.

The comics are also notable for being vastly superior in all ways to the DLC, in spite of Walter's classically terrible writing, partially because Miller was holding his hand the whole way through and writing all the dialogue and event scripting, and partially because the comic features Adjutants in their full, unedited, rapey, teleport-spamming, and most definitely not cut from the final game because math is really hard you guys, glory.

This is then you not clicking on any links beyond the first one, understanding anything, or using your brain at all, and going off on a tangent about Arrival, which no one was fucking talking about in the first place. Possibly because you're ignorant of the material we're talking about, and had no idea that Bioware scammed us out of a massive DLC with solid everything in favor of, wait for it, supplemental material that you had to read to fully understand what the hell was going on and why, which is exactly what you said you trusted them not to do, and exactly why I brought Omega up in the first place.

No one was talking about Mass Effect 2 DLC. You're just an idiot, apparently.

That is how you properly deconstruct someone's points when they're wrong, Proudboar. You do it by actually pointing out how they are wrong, and not begging off because it's too exhausting a job sitting on your high horse to educate the masses with your vastly superior knowledge.

Now. Here's the deal. I said I wouldn't respond to you or Scott so long as you were trolling the thread and trying to start arguments.

I have broken that promise, because the sheer amount of ignorance and hypocrisy you just threw down compelled me to say one last thing on the subject, against my better judgement. I will not do so a second time.

If you would like to join the rest of us in a discussion about Bioware, Dragon Age, and Inquisition, I would gladly participate alongside it with you, because I like talking about lore and other sundry things. But if all you're going to do is respond to this and me with further arguments and derail this topic even further with debates, not about anything interesting, but about interpersonal politics of the forum, then, and I want to be clear that I say this in the kindest and most respectful manner it is possible to, please shut the hell up. I came here for Dragon Age. I'd like to have some Dragon Age, if that's okay with everyone else.

Well you see, that's the thing about it. On one hand, I agree with them developing DLC characters alongside the game as it is being produced, as opposed to developing it in pure post-production.

The biggest complaint I have about Zaeed and Katsumi from Mass Effect 2 is that they were flat, shallow, static, and two-dimensional. A big part of the reason why is that they were made completely after the game came out. There was no way to put in dialogue or banter for them between themselves and Shepard or themselves and the other squadmates, because the voice actors for the main game were already finished. They could only have been integrated into the game at considerable expense, by overhauling the game missions to insert them and dragging all the voice actors back together for a few more sessions.

So on one level, I'm okay with, and even support the idea, of them developing the DLC characters 'alongside' the main game.

The problem arises from an ethical extrapolation, however. Javik wasn't really a DLC character. He was already almost fully in the game. The DLC you bought that contained "him" was actually just the unlock code for him and a few missing bits and pieces for some of his missions. Javik was the best DLC character they've produced because he was so fully integrated into the game he was made for, but he is also simultaneously the most controversial, because people didn't feel that they were buying something new, but rather that they were paying for the right to use something that they already had. And there is a lot of merit in that argument. It's an incredible dick move to sell somebody a box with treasure in it, but then tell them the key is sold separately, and it's illegal to pry the thing open even though the 'lock' is actually made of a toothpick threaded between two holes on the front.

If they want to make a DLC character for Inquisition, they need to do a couple of things.

1.) They need to decide, right off the bat, how many DLC characters they're going to have. One? Two? Three? Once they have that number, they need to commit to it, and not deviate from it. Doing a fully integrated character or characters and then later releasing something halfassed like Zaeed or Katsumi will just look all the worse for them and the content because of the contrast.

2.) They need to start working on those DLC characters right now. The first and most important step is getting the voice acting all out of the way. Work out everyone's lines and dialogue, and have the voice actors all knock everything out between every character combination. This needs to happen while the dialogue is being recorded for the main game, and not afterwards, to ensure that the characters can be fully integrated into the game and seem as though they are actually there, and not just mute ghosts following the main character around.

3.) They need to not be vitally important to the story or intrinsically connected to the plot in a way that makes their presence an obvious given. This is extremely important. A lot of people were upset about Javik not just because of all the things I pointed out, but also because Javik's presence as a squadmate seemed to feel necessary to many people who played the game. They are not, strictly speaking, wrong. Javik felt vitally important, to the extent that many claimed he felt less like a DLC character, and more like a core squadmate that had been intended to go in with the plot all along, but had been cut and had a price tag attached to him arbitrarily by Bioware and EA in an attempt to wring out that little bit more money.

So the DLC character(s) need to be fully integrated into the plot, having dialogue, actions, reactions, and interaction with the MC, their fellow squadmates, NPCs, and the world around them, but they cannot be someone who should obviously be present in the party by virtue of being themselves, thereby making the players feel resentful that they are being forced to pay for someone they feel should have been there in the first place.

4.) Use the time you have wisely. Once the voice acting is out of the way, and all dialogue has been recorded, put them on the backburner. You don't have to stop developing them, but don't worry about pushing them out. A lot of people are upset by day one DLC anyway, and you have months ahead of you before anyone expects any DLC or expansions for the game, where you can focus all of your work on making the character look good, and adding and fleshing out that character's content.

To use my earlier speculation/wishful thinking for an example, let's look at this in terms of the Tevinter Blood Mage. You already have all his/her dialogue recorded. They're already fully integrated into the game because of how they will act and react to other squadmates and NPCs. So instead of rushing the character out, spend some time on them. Create a DLC area that comes packaged with them, like a new Tevinter-themed area like Tevinter demon cultists, or even a trip to an island off the cost of Tevinter itself to visit an outpost or port city. Add lots of cool content to it, like new weapons, armor, spells, and enemies. Flesh it out. Play with their unique magic spells so they look as good as they can. Playtest the character in parties to balance their skills and work out how you can give the character a unique contribution and feel to a group they are a part of, mechanically speaking, without breaking the game or making it too hard or too easy.

For instance, let's say the Tevinter Blood Mage uses Blood Trance/Blood Channel/Blood Feast/ect to give the whole party a mix of buffs or double-edged advantages in melee combat and spellcasting, like all casters, enemy and ally alike, now cast from health directly whether they want to or not, circumventing magic entirely, or that all physical attacks siphon health from their targets to heal the squadmate that is attacking, but those affected are losing their health at a constant rate while the buff is active. How would these work in combat? Do they make battles feel more frantic or dangerous? Faster paced? How does high-risk high-reward support feel? Is it too strong? Or too weak? Does it make people want to run with the character because of the novelty of the different playstyles they open up, or do players avoid the character because they don't like the changes? Will this character break the game in some fashion if we release them, due to possible combinations with other party members? Is giving players a way to force enemy casters with low health but high defenses or evasion to effectively kill themselves (activate Blood Trance, send physical fighters after the noncasters while one character plays bodyguard to the Blood Mage, enemy casters cast themselves to death) too powerful a move to pull? Or is it just another legitimate strategy in a combat system that throws multiple enemy types after you together in mixed clusters?

Make people feel like they're getting their money's worth when they buy the character. Rushing it out for day one doesn't help you in any way, and will actually hurt you in the eyes of many. So take your time with it. Make the DLC something people will pay for gladly and eagerly, instead of grudgingly and with dissent.

If they do this, then starting work on the characters now and doing what they were doing for Javik at this stage will be a good thing.

They probably won't. But it's what they could be doing.

 

Uhh...Bioware released a video talking a bit more about the plot. Apparently the Veil that keeps the Fade out of the normal world has been/ is being broken, and now demons. All the demons.

I suppose that could be interesting, but I don't honestly like having Eldritch Abominations as the main enemy. So far what we've been shown of demons is that they do it for the shits and giggles. In DA:O the entire Mage Asunder plotline was because one idiot summoned demons in, and they decided to just fuck shit up. There is no nation of demons, no main goals or drives. They just see some living shit, and they want to fuck it up.

I really liked the Pride demon from the Mage Origin, but at the same time it seemed very directionless. "Well, if you lose I'll go back and turn your body into my meat puppet." But the damn thing has to know that the Templars are just waiting to cut your head off the second you appear demon-y. It implied (I think downright stated but I can't remember for sure) it's been a part of the test many times, so it has to know it won't gain anything, even some murder time, by taking you over. Where's the motivation?

I suppose I'm just concerned that it'll be something like the Darkspawn in DA:O. The Darkspawn are an interesting idea and bit of lore, but they were uninteresting villains. All of the fascinating plot bits came from interacting with the regular people you were trying to recruit or who were standing in your way.

tl;dr: Absolute Evil that kills everything because it is Absolute Evil bores me.

 

Wasn't taking the mage's body just the Rage Demon's plan? As I recall, Pride's was to befriend you so you went looking for him when you were away from the Circle's eyes. And even then, as I understand it, killing the abomination does little to the demon, since it is still within the Fade. So either the demon gets a few minutes in the material world before their body get's destroyed (which they'll still consider a win) or they manage to overpower the Templars, and flee before they're killed (a definite win).

With any luck, though, they'll be some kind of demon politicking to make them seem more interesting. The Broken Circle showed that there is some kind of power hierarchy amongst demons, so it could be interesting to see different demonic lords fighting over control of certain areas to bring in more of their own subordinates.

 

Raine, I just wanna say, politely, that neither Proudboar nor me attacked you or trolled (we never trolled in this thread) in the last few of our posts. I'm glad that we put the arguments behind us and I personally have only been talking about strictly game-related stuff for two days. I've already said what I had to say on the other topics we discussed in this thread.

And about DLC - why do we even fucking need DLC characters? As much hate as I suspect my upcoming statement might garner me, I think FPS games like BF do DLC better. They give the players new content - locations, weapons, vehicles, whatever. For RPGs, just giving new weapons and items would be boring, yes, but hey, there could be new spells, talents. New places to explore and new shit to kill. I know, if we're talking about new locations and quests then more voice-acting and NPCs are unavoidable.

So I say, spend a few months more on the game and give us all the companions from the start, for fuck sake. DLC that needs to be taken care of while the main game is still being developed is fundamentally badly done DLC. DLC, if they so fucking want it, should come out after the main game is already out, it should not be just content cut from the main game but actually something new. But most of all, if they release DLC items/weapons/armor, it shouldn't render whatever else is in the game useless. That's exactly what happened with the Item Packs for DA2. If you got them, there was no reason to hunt the stores anymore because all the stupid green shit that the character didn't need to buy but got for free from the chest at home (yes, you had to pay real money for it, but I'm talking in the context of the game world) was so overpowered, yes, overpowered, that you could dress up your mage in Act 1 and not need to buy anything apart from maybe one or two things that were still good at this point. But for example the mage robe from the Mage Item Pack 2 whose only requirement was that the character be a mage and lvl 17 (and lvl 17 was only halfway through Act 2) was so good in fact, that the Robes of Unblemished Cleanliness, which were only available in Act 3 and cost over 150 gold in the Black Emporium and considered one of the best pieces of mage gear in the game suddenly became a waste of money.

The Empress' Point and the Dogs of War were another two examples of this. Both 2H physical dmg weapons that came in item packs and you could use them very early in the game. The Empress required you to only be lvl 17, did a fuckton of dmg, had 2 runeslots and gave retarded bonuses of crit chance and attack speed. Dogs leveled up with Hawke and eventually became so powerful that it also made the Blade of Mercy, which was in the vanilla game and Act 3 exclusive look like a kid's toy.

I'm not even going to go into rogue gear. Enough to say that Item Pack DLCs were a good idea, but it was hilariously badly executed. [/dlc_rant]

I want more item variety in DA:I. I want to have to think which two rings to put on my mage because one gives +fire dmg, one increases mana regen, one gives +%attack speed and the last gives a straight-up spellpower bonus. If I replay the game as mage, I don't want to know exactly how much money I'll need for what shit to buy and where to get the best equipment because there are only 2 rings in the game that will actually benefit me. And I want the best stuff to appear late in the game, yes, because it's exciting to see new powerful items show up in the stores. But I also don't want it to show up so late that I'll barely have need for it, or actually won't. Because Orsino's staff in DA2 was one of the best spirit dmg staves in the game (even including the stupid shit Item Packs) but by the time you got it, it felt more like a slap in the face than anything else because you've already spent the entire game being a spirit mage without it, thank you very much.

If you put Templar armor into the game, give the gloves, boots and a helmet as well! And a sun shield! And give it all a set bonus! Don't tease me like that by just putting in a half-assed light templar armor in Act 3 which doesn't mean a shit because I'll have the champion armor in twenty minutes.

And I want to be able to play as a warrior with a fucking bow! I want a rogue with a shield without having to resort to exploiting bugs! I want a mage in actual battle armor, not just a dress! I want crossbows, not just bows! DA:O did it better. More character build variety. In that regard, fuck you, DA2, even if you were fun to play.

 

So I went back and did a quick runthrough of the mage origin. Pride basically said he wanted to hitch along back to the real world in your head. Obviously, given that he was a demon disguised as an apprentice, he would promptly take over your brain and proceed to screw everything with awesome powers. And after you refused the demon implied he was part of the test, talking about how simple murder is a warrior's job, and giving you warnings about trust and careless pride. Side note, the first time I played a Mage Origin, when you refused to let "Mouse" go along with you, his voice instantly changed tone to something older and much cleverer. "You are a smart one." I was pretty scurred for my new character's poor mind virginity.

So while I can see it not giving a fuck if its temporary meat puppet gets broken, it seems that a pride demon (renowned as impossibly intelligent and crafty) would be more along the lines of. "Well hey, happy to help with your Rage Demon problem. Say- look me up sometime when you're not surrounded by plate mail wearing assholes. We can hang out and be bros."

(I would be a horrible demon.)

But, that is not the point of this.

That could be interesting as all hell. And I suppose seeing how the spirits who aren't feeding on negative emotion and out to destroy everything react to suddenly having the veil opened could be interesting. And if SOMETHING doesn't happen with the Black City, I will be pissed.

Anyway I just think they'd need to add a lot of depth to the demonic forces we've seen before. Don't even get me started on DA2 demons. "The city is secretly a Tevinter rune attracting awful things."

 

Wait, what? I'm confused, why am I being dragged into this one? I made a couple comments, one about the DA:O characters who appeared in DA2, and a vague comment about how, in my apparently highly optimistic opinion, that I didn't think the supplementary material would have to be mandatory to understand wtf, is going on.

Otherwise, this shit is between you and Poytin. I'm completely fucking tired of all the arguing that achieves nothing and is completely pointless. So keep me out of it.
________________________________________-

Anyway, as far as specializations, I want a magical rogue. Maybe it's a mage who uses illusions, or a rogue who uses magic, but I want it.

 

If a DLC character can't be important to the main events of the game, why is he a potential companion? You'll just have another Zaeed, really. Why is he fighting for you if he has no purpose to fight? He could be a mercenary I guess, who only cares about being paid, but it's definitely going to be a weak character if they have nothing invested with the main story.

That's why DLC companions are just a bad idea. If they want to charge us $70 USD for DA:I to get the full game, they need to find a better way to do it, because cutting content from the game is fucking stupid and making dumb, barely connected content is almost as stupid. In the end, developers are wasting their time anyway (granted, I don't really know how it goes at BioWare, but I honestly doubt post production results in staffers sitting around sipping coffee all day, they always have things that can be done to improve a game come release - like, you know, an immediate patch). Drop this DLC nonsense altogether and concoct a sceheme that doens't have all these problems. There is a way to be 'lawful good' here and make an 'honest' profit.

Like, expansions? Whatever happened to those? Right, I get that they've fallen out of style, for various reasons... But a proper 'episodic expansion' could work? A $10 purchase nets you additional areas to explore. TES still tends to do expansions effectively, so I don't understand why EA is so dead set against them. Look at New Vegas, it has an incredible amount of episodic expansion 'dlc'.

 

As I'm playing New Vegas now (well, currently FO3 again, but it's through New Vegas with this neat mod that makes it play a lot better), I'm glad you brought it up. I think New Vegas set a great example for DLC. Each was its own unique location with its own twist on normal gameplay, its own story and cast, and with new weapons and gear. Plus they had an overarching story of sorts. Some were better done than others, but I'd still take any of those expansions over something like ME2's Arrival. GRA just added equipment, but at least it was integrated into the game world and not just dumped for you. Courier's Stash is probably the worst since it just loads equipment on you right from the start, but it's telling when NV's worst is the standard for many other games.

As for DA:I's story, the premise seems okay. I suppose the "inquisition" you're setting up will be into who opened the Veil and why, and you'll have to work around the ongoing Mage/Templar war (which is likely preventing the Templars from fighting these demons back as well as they could be) as well as all the political shit-stirring that's been happening since the Fifth Blight that was alluded to in DA2. Things I want more information/some resolution on are the Black City, Flemeth and whatever's on the other side of the Eluvian Morrigan (and the Warden, potentially) went through.

 

Right. BioWare has had DLC problems, especially since DA:O was their first major foray into it. If you recall, that 'keep' DLC was priced at a ridiculous amount and the quest/content last you all of fifteen minutes.

The problem with DLC is it can never "outsell" the base game; it's always limited by the number of people who bought the base game, so DLC can never be "justified" to be equivalent. That is, if I spent $60 on a full game, I tend to get a full game for $60, but because of the potential profit from a piece of DLC, a $10 DLC is not like a $70 game suddenly, or 1/6th of a base game, it's always significantly less. I can agree we players sometimes put too much emphasis of playtime / dollars spent, but it just feels like DLC is flawed in its fundamental design. DLC shouldn't feel like second or third rate content.

Valve gives free updates with TF2, always has, even since the game was $20 to play. Valve is a problematic example, because they've had lots of money to work with, but we can agree TF2 was enormously financially successful, despite having a very slow start. The theory was, back then, that if you release free "DLC" or updates, and market the game, you will keep a playerbase playing the game, keeping it active, and thus, you will also draw in new consumers, who see the game as a "better deal" because of the added content.

This is more difficult to translate into a single player game, but theoretically, would more people buy the base game if DLC were added to Dragon Age 3 every X months? If DA3 kept its price floating at $20 or $40 USD, and continued to add content every few months, marketing the game with entertaining cinema and footage, would you be able to continue to draw in new consumers?

Granted, a strategy like this is very PC-focused, as opposed to consoles, which are more driven by box sales, which taper off after six weeks. But there is evidence, at least, of other methods of getting an EA game to market, so that these disingenuous or self-defeating design practices don't have to be used.

I guess what I'm saying is, BioWare and EA tend to give excuses for what they do. But there is 'always a better way'. In-fact, BioWare should be changing directions, instead of being set in its ineffective ways. I'm not convinced DLC is the best way to go about making an RPG -- nor is adding a de-facto multiplayer mode.

 

The best part of the Shapeshifter in DA: O was the swarm of bugs. Shit I'm low on health. Better turn into this swarm of bugs and regain health for a little bit. But personally I think that should probably stay where it is. If there is shapeshifting in this game I'm thinking it'll be more like what it is in the Fade. Like fighting and all of a sudden the mage is a golem. Or perhaps you'll figure out how to turn into various demon shapes.

 

Me too!

 

"Oh no! A man with a pointy bit of metal! But that's okay, I'm a Pride Demon now!"

 

The DA2 dlc that I thought didn't add much was Sebastian. While he had some funny dialogues esp. with Bethany (in the prison dlc), I found him to be a useless character who could have been more interesting if they pitted him against Anders or made you choose a side or added an area that wasn't just rehashed like most of the areas.

Mark of the Assassin was a better DLC and I would have preferred Talis to Sebastian.

ME3 dlcs should have been in the game. The first time I played through, without any dlc content, I was in full rage mode. After DLCs I calmed a bit down but my experience was marred by the lack of knowing the story behind the cycle and all the first time around.

Fallout 3 DLCs were good because they added a new experience and weren't intrinsic to enjoying the main plot.

For DA I DLCs I wouldn't mind seeing a Tevinter Blood Mage character dlc as Raine mentioned esp. if we get to visit his home town and mess with slaves and blood magic.

The other thing that I would have liked was a flexibility in what your stance was (ranging from good to neutral to evil to chaotic etc.). In ME you're basically a good person with snark and in DA2 you're good but either diplomatic, witty, or aggressive.

It would be more fun if you saved the galaxy or whatever but maybe you were the worse option at the end of the day. Makes me think of Kotor and how awesome it was.

 

I can't think of any game that has done a moral choice system that has awesome, proper, branching consequences well.

Maybe New Vegas, but that's objectively, didn't do it for me.

 

Have you played Fallout/Fallout 2? They feel more reactive to me, in terms of consequence. But making a reactive RPG is not on Bethesda's, Obsidian's or BioWare's budget. Obsidian does give you some reactivity, BioWare a smidgen, but they'd rather put money in cinematics, voice acting, and breadth, rather than consider a dozen potential outcomes for a single decision.

To properly do 'moral consequences' on a large scale you'd pretty much have to simulate it, you couldn't hand script every potential permetation of player choice. You'd have to say firstly, "NPCs aren't voiced." Because you'd have to have lines generated that are unvoiced (because your outcomes vary the things people say), this is probably why Fallout 1/2 feel more reactive to me. You'd also have to do a lot of bug testing as any kind of simulation is prone to them more than a scripted game.

Basically, it's not going to happen in a big budget RPG.

 

It wouldn't be that hard, you're assuming that every NPC has to react to your moral choices, which just isn't so. Not everyone has to be in the know.

You're also assuming every little choice has to have universe altering consequences.

Mostly, it's the little moral choices that shit me, like companion stuff in DA. The notion you can't be friends with someone or have them respect you unless you answer in a way they 'approve' always shit me.

I'd love to be able to convince Morrigan to not be such a miserable cunt like her mother, punch Fenris in the face for being a broody, emo prick, or even convince Leliana that one can do the right thing without some divine being having a hand in it.

It's character interaction that makes games for me, which is why I'm not a big bethesda fan, and why i hated pandering to these twats in DA so they would 'like' or at least respect me.

 

@ Hugplx
Have you tried KotoR? In both of the games you can have huge influence on your NPCs and they are still quite nice despite their age.

But yeah.. The NPC interaction was one thing where DA2 did at least try to improve. A better Friend/Rival system would be great and shouldn´t be that difficult.

@ Chime

The thing with Fall Out and and Skyrim is that they are a lot more open world than DA is/was which means it is a lot easier to include additional content. DA and ME tries to tell a story and that conflicts with not already planned content. And both ME and DA have an definite end which is is also missing in other games.

 

Hugplx, you should really try Kotor as Erandil suggested. I played Kotor 2 first and was obsessed with the game. The companions are amazingly well done and feel like real people rather than one dimensional "broody elf" or "terrorist" or "whore."

Not all NPCs need to react to your decisions only the ones who see it\or face the repercussions. Fallout 3 did an awesome thing using Three Dog to "spread" the news of the Lone Wanderers exploits and so made it understandable.

Moral choice can extend beyond the same choice just dressed up in different words. What if in ME I wanted to help Cerebrus and found them to be compelling? Would it change the fate of the universe? Why not? Why do I have to be herded into one pre-ordained ending\order of events?

They can have a "canon" ending. DAO books prefer the canon male human not the elf or dwarf but they still included the option.

It's why I'm looking forward to Obsidian's RPG because they said truly dark moral choices will be possible. It adds replay value as well.

 

Choice has ripple effects, or at least, in theory, it should. Kreia talks a lot about this in KOTOR2 - an "ideal" RPG would simulate what she talks about. Consider her analogy, but in the form of an RPG.

You are approached by a beggar NPC. He wants one coin from you.

A) give him the coin
B) refuse him

This seems like a totally insignificant choice, but...

If A) the beggar thanks you and goes to buy food, but because he has a coin, a starving thug kills him for it.
If B) the beggar steals food from a stall to survive

If AA) Guards see the killing and try to arrest the man, they end up killing him, but not before he wounds a captain of the guard. The captain of the guard is permanently disfigured and now has a twisted sense of justice. Later on, choices you have during quests regarding this captain of the guard are different or have altered effects.
If BB) The beggar steals from a rich, overzealous merchant, who actually puts a bounty on the man, to set an example. You can take on this bounty, which gets your character involved with the merchant, when you otherwise would have never had an excuse to speak with him.

A bit of an extreme example, maybe even a tad silly, but the kind of reactive RPG I think a lot of people had hoped Mass Effect might try to emulate. Perhaps it's a bit much to ask - it's not easy to provide such reactivity, but you need to try just a little. Case in point, in Dragon Age Origins, you can choose to side with the Werewolves or the Elves. Siding with the elves doesn't do anything noteworthy that I can think of. Siding with the werewolves is much more interesting, as I think it results in some rogue werewolf attacks on innocent people. It's been a while - but that's the sort of thing we kind of want, our choices to have consequences that reach outside the bounds of a single instance. Unfortunately werewolf vs elf really doesn't matter all that much, either choice is basically identical, it merely effects what NPCs aid you in the final battle. The choice to ally with the wolves or elves could have been much more impactful than it was.

The problem with Skyrim/Fallout 3 is the choices they give you are pretty two-dimensional (DLC/expansion stuff not represented here, I only played the base games of each) - give your bottlecaps to the orphan or don't, the orphan will still want more bottlecaps even if you give him ten million of them. At best, helping an orphan gives that NPC a new canned response OR they just vanish from the world entirely and the designers hope you'll forget about them. If you choose to help someone, even if it seems like an insignificant choice at first, ideally, should have much more reaching consequence.

So I disagree, ideally, we shouldn't treat this problem like it's a simple one. There's no simple substitute, you either strive to provide reactivity or you strive to just give an illusion of it (which BioWare tends to do to a decent extent).

In general, BioWare games currently work this way:

A) give bum money
B) don't give bum money

If A) Liara approves, +10 paragon, maybe he sends you an email later, "Thanks to you, I am not healthy and have a college degree! Now go kill those reapers."
If B) Morrigan disapproves, bum turns hostile and you kill him and rape his family afterward. This is never mentioned of again once you leave the hamlet.

Stilted choice is pretty eh. I like the "paragon point" concept in a sense that it can try to simualte your choices and produce a net effect on the game, but the problem I have with the paragon/renegade system as it has been implemented, is that it only influences your character's aesthetics and promotes playing the game in a single-minded manner (If you pick paragon, likely, you will pick paragon all game, all paragon choices, all the time; without thinking). If protecting the intergalactic council at a halfway point in a mass effect game required 500 paragon, then it would be totally different, because we'd be saying, "Because you fed orphans and bums, the strength of the army is better, so you can protect the council from reapers." This is also why I sort of liked the score thing in ME3 initially, but was later disappointed when it didn't really matter and was more or less punishing players who didn't play multiplayer or have save files from previouss mass effect games. You couldn't possibly have a high score without one or the other, it had honestly little to do with your actual in-game karmic choices.