Consequences

[djbladeer]

There are sith warrior spoilers below . I declare you now aware of that .

 

 

k.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No matter what choices I make either in main or side quests the consequence is still the same , Bioware , I dont understand what you meant by saying multiple times in interviews/vids , etc. that every choice has consequences. I watched all class story endings and all of them end the same no matter what , like if I like darth baras and be nice to him etc, heel backstab me. If I annoy him and make fun of him , heel backstab me . I mean , what ?

[Wolfninjajedi]

Obviously a sith lord would back stab you, thats a pretty well known fact. I mean Sidious was gonna replace Vader with his son, yet still kept him around he back stabbed Dooku too. Edited March 13, 2012 by Wolfninjajedi

[Varicite]

There are sith warrior spoilers below . I declare you now aware of that .

 

 

k.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No matter what choices I make either in main or side quests the consequence is still the same , Bioware , I dont understand what you meant by saying multiple times in interviews/vids , etc. that every choice has consequences. I watched all class story endings and all of them end the same no matter what , like if I like darth baras and be nice to him etc, heel backstab me. If I annoy him and make fun of him , heel backstab me . I mean , what ?

 

I used to talk about this a lot before the game was released, and most people said that I was being stupid and that there were tons of choices that matter in the game.

 

So now here we are, and guess what? There actually aren't at all. I don't think there are any.

[Xeta]

Imperial Agent has by far the most consequences. There are like 6 ways to end the story and they're all very very different.

[PaperSnow]

I think there's a difference between choices and main plot points. Yes, the SW is going to be betrayed. Many times. We can't change that. But we can decide how to deal with those betrayals. Should we forgive the traitors and/or show them mercy? Be ruthless and strike them down? Abandon them to fend for themselves?

 

There are choices. But you're still following a story's path.

 

The only thing in this regard that I'm angry about is that the Imperial Agents got their five possible endings trimmed down to three. Wouldn't be so bad, but the one of the cut endings was the one I wanted.

[Wolfninjajedi]

I think there's a difference between choices and main plot points. Yes, the SW is going to be betrayed. Many times. We can't change that. But we can decide how to deal with those betrayals. Should we forgive the traitors and/or show them mercy? Be ruthless and strike them down? Abandon them to fend for themselves?

 

There are choices. But you're still following a story's path.

 

The only thing in this regard that I'm angry about is that the Imperial Agents got their five possible endings trimmed down to three. Wouldn't be so bad, but the one of the cut endings was the one I wanted.

 

What endings were cut?

[PaperSnow]

What endings were cut?

 

I only recall one for sure off of the top of my head:

 

 

You keep the Codex instead of giving it to anyone and become a free agent, working for the good of the Empire from the shadows without restrictions or sanctions. But you use the secrets in the Codex to blackmail the Dark Council into restoring Imperial Intelligence to it's former glory.

 

 

I believe the other one is:

 

 

You give the Codex to the Sith, and at the end of the storyline, they use it to form Sith Intelligence, Imperial Intelligence's replacement that has infinitely greater meddling from the Sith. You join up with Sith Intelligence, but you don't become the leader; You're just another cog in the machine.

 

 

I know that is an ending, I'm just not sure if it's the second one that got cut. Pretty sure it is, though, with

 

 

The ending where you DO become the leader of Sith Intelligence being one of the endings that remained.

 

[Varicite]

I think there's a difference between choices and main plot points. Yes, the SW is going to be betrayed. Many times. We can't change that. But we can decide how to deal with those betrayals. Should we forgive the traitors and/or show them mercy? Be ruthless and strike them down? Abandon them to fend for themselves?

 

There are choices. But you're still following a story's path.

 

The only thing in this regard that I'm angry about is that the Imperial Agents got their five possible endings trimmed down to three. Wouldn't be so bad, but the one of the cut endings was the one I wanted.

 

Conversational choices aren't really choices.

 

"Guy: Go do this thing that is entirely out of your character!

Me: Um, no, I refuse.. that's entirely out of my character..

Guy: Okay, your refusal has been noted! Now go do this thing!

Me: ....

 

Quest: Things done entirely out of your character 0/10.

Bonus Mission: Babies/Seals clubbed in immediate area 0/30"

 

Yeah, see, that wasn't a choice. That's the VAST majority of what you will encounter in this game.

 

Sure, sometimes you will get to kill a guy who is completely irrelevant to the plotline, or save him, and he will remain.. completely irrelevant to the plotline. You most likely won't even remember his name, or that you killed him in an hour.

 

He most definitely will NEVER be mentioned again in the entire game, and nobody will ever acknowledge any choice that you have made.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Varicite

[djbladeer]

Glad to hear that im not the only one that has issues with this

[Ranadiel_Marius]

I only recall one for sure off of the top of my head:

 

 

You keep the Codex instead of giving it to anyone and become a free agent, working for the good of the Empire from the shadows without restrictions or sanctions. But you use the secrets in the Codex to blackmail the Dark Council into restoring Imperial Intelligence to it's former glory.

 

 

I believe the other one is:

 

 

You give the Codex to the Sith, and at the end of the storyline, they use it to form Sith Intelligence, Imperial Intelligence's replacement that has infinitely greater meddling from the Sith. You join up with Sith Intelligence, but you don't become the leader; You're just another cog in the machine.

 

 

I know that is an ending, I'm just not sure if it's the second one that got cut. Pretty sure it is, though, with

 

 

The ending where you DO become the leader of Sith Intelligence being one of the endings that remained.

 

I have never heard of the first one you describe ever existing and I have gone over a data rip from beta without seeing any mention of such an ending. So if it was ut, it was likely cut before they did any work on it. I mean there is a free agent ending, but you don't recreate Imperial Intellegence.

 

The second one you describe, the end result can happen but the conditions to get it are wrong. Sith Intellegence is always formed regardless of if you give them the Black Codex or not. If you don't give it to them and don't become a free agent, then you are a member of the newly formed Sith Intellegence without being the leader.

 

[PaperSnow]

I have never heard of the first one you describe ever existing and I have gone over a data rip from beta without seeing any mention of such an ending. So if it was ut, it was likely cut before they did any work on it. I mean there is a free agent ending, but you don't recreate Imperial Intellegence.

 

The second one you describe, the end result can happen but the conditions to get it are wrong. Sith Intellegence is always formed regardless of if you give them the Black Codex or not. If you don't give it to them and don't become a free agent, then you are a member of the newly formed Sith Intellegence without being the leader.

 

Oh wow, really? I remember reading a bit of a long thread about the storyline earlier in the month, and everyone seemed to agree that those were endings. The five they stated were:

 

 

One: Free agent, but restore Imperial Intelligence.

 

Two: Free agent, but Imperial Intelligence remains dissolved.

 

Three: Truly defect and join the SIS and the Republic.

 

Four: Give the Sith the Codex and become just another pawn for Sith Intelligence.

 

Five: Give the Sith the Codex and become leader of Sith Intelligence.

 

 

With One and Four getting cut out before official launch for unknown reasons. I wish I could find the thread now, since I remember being a bit upset over being denied One, since that is a hundred percent the outcome my IA would want.

[Ranadiel_Marius]

Oh wow, really? I remember reading a bit of a long thread about the storyline earlier in the month, and everyone seemed to agree that those were endings. The five they stated were:

 

 

One: Free agent, but restore Imperial Intelligence.

 

Two: Free agent, but Imperial Intelligence remains dissolved.

 

Three: Truly defect and join the SIS and the Republic.

 

Four: Give the Sith the Codex and become just another pawn for Sith Intelligence.

 

Five: Give the Sith the Codex and become leader of Sith Intelligence.

 

 

With One and Four getting cut out before official launch for unknown reasons. I wish I could find the thread now, since I remember being a bit upset over being denied One, since that is a hundred percent the outcome my IA would want.

 

 

Having looked through the ripped str files the endings I recall being in the game are:

 

Independent Agent(keep the codex for yourself)

 

Head of Sith Intellegence(give the codex to the Sith)

-Jadus Version

-Council Version

 

Agent of Sith Intellegence(don't give the codex to the Sith)

-Regular Agent Version(destroy the codex or just don't use the codex)

-Double Agent Version(give the codex to SIS)

 

Sith Intellegence exists in all versions. Unless I am forgetting some lines, the endings you are talking about would of had to have been removed prior to Oct of last year and they would of had to have compeltely cleaned up the junk data.....which would be odd because I've easily got dialogue for 20+ quests that don't exist in the various str files.

 

[Erian]

Bioware , I dont understand what you meant by saying multiple times in interviews/vids , etc. that every choice has consequences.

 

Marketing hype, AKA lies. I never believe this particular hype/lie anymore from anyone. Bioware did the same with Dragon Age: Origins, which in truth has a grand total of maybe two moments in which anything you do actually matters and can have different outcomes that change anything at all. Nothing else matters.

 

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with gaming because I desperately WANT consequences -- good AND bad. I want to be able to royally eff up. I want to be able to piss people off beyond the point where they're still willing to work with me. I want to be able to hit a dead end I can't get out of. I want to be able to fail, and pay the price for it, both in side missions and in the main plot. Else, what is the point in doing well, in succeeding at anything? It's hard to feel a sense of accomplishment if there's literally no way that the story will let me lose.

 

Story and player choice should matter. Combat shouldn't be the only way to "fail" and "lose" and have to reload or start over.

[Guildrum]

Except that no one takes care to realize that there would be consequences to having consequences in this game. Just think.

 

Jimmy Joe Jim Bob and Arthur are both doing a non-class quest.

 

Jimmy Joe Jim Bob is light side and Arthur is dark side, they are both confronted with an option.

 

Kill the helpless scientist or let him live.

 

Jimmy, being the good-two-shoes he is, lets him live. While Arthur kills him and strings his guts all across the room.

 

Now, let's assume that your ideas are actually put into place. Now, the scientist is an important figure, and sends Jimmy, who let him live, to some long quest chain. Now, Arthur is left without that. And then later on, they actually find themselves unable to interact with one another, because as a result of their discrepancy, they find themselves in two completely different realities! While bunnies and unicorns are prancing around in Arthur's world, the scientist's army of mad robots have taken over the same place in Jimmy's world.

 

Can no one see the issue here?

[wavyhill]

Can no one see the issue here?

 

Hyperbole leads to divergent realities with a possibility for robot initiated genocide?

 

Nothing you said is even remotely related to anything in this game. You seem to be operating under the assumption that putting actually bloody consequences into the story arcs would, by necessity, lead to widespread phasing like in WoW's Cata zones.You could not be further from the truth.

[Guildrum]

Hyperbole leads to divergent realities with a possibility for robot initiated genocide?

 

Nothing you said is even remotely related to anything in this game. You seem to be operating under the assumption that putting actually bloody consequences into the story arcs would, by necessity, lead to widespread phasing like in WoW's Cata zones.You could not be further from the truth.

 

Well then, what do you want? Aside from different effects in story areas (which happens anyways, albeit it could happen to a larger degree), there would be no other way to actually put in consequences. Here's an in-game example.

 

 

Empire Story- Balmorra.

 

The Imperial Character captures a Resistance Leader, Grand Marshal Checketta (sp?) and you have two options. Let him live and have him admit the Republic's involvement on Balmorra, and how it breaks the Treaty of Coruscant. Or you can kill him. That means that there would be two scenarios...

 

To let him live would, according to Darth Lachriss, cause a lot of distrust of the Republic and injure them diplomatically and politically. To kill him, would give the Republic no more reason to continue supporting the Resistance. So that means that depending on your decision, that the non-instanced Republic Soldiers still remain, despite apparently forcing the Republic to either give up or live to their support of Balmorra. With teh system you plan on adding, that would basically make it so that if you kill him, the Republic would pull their soldiers out of Balmorra. If you let him live, they would presumably stay. And so, that would require WoW's Cataclysm-style instancing.

 

 

Edit: I like, heck, even love the idea, and if it could be done in a manner that would not separate players more than they already are, that would be excellent! But sadly, I cannot think of a real system to having lasting consequences in the game outside of the story areas, where it already happens to a small degree.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Guildrum

[wavyhill]

Well then, what do you want? Aside from different effects in story areas (which happens anyways, albeit it could happen to a larger degree), there would be no other way to actually put in consequences.

I don't see anyone in this thread asking for things that occur inside story areas to carry on outside story areas. I see people complaining that the choices you make within the story areas has little to no effect upon what happens in later story areas. What everyone else in this thread is talking about can be accomplished without phasing, easily. What you seem to be talking about would be near-impossible to accomplish without phasing unless Bioware replaces a whole lot of storylines.

 

Which brings me to the next part of your post.

 

Here's an in-game example.

That's an issue with the writers and Biowares story goals. There simply is no bloody need for every story arc to be about saving the planet/galaxy from yet another hidden threat that nobody outside that arc ever talks about. See the Ch1 Bounty Hunter class quests for a good example.

 

What Bioware has done is make it so that saving an entire planet is mundane. If that's not writing yourself into a corner than I don't know what is. Blizzard has done the exact same thing with WoW and you can see how seriously people take each and every new "threat" that gets brought up; i.e. not at all.

[Sivenom]

I see both sides of the argument, but I have to hand it to the "just calm down a moment and reason" aspect. Right now the stories are built with a certain cohesion so that the story lines can be.... well... a class story. You start a slave, screw a couple Darths, and then rise to the dark council. It can be easily talked about, and whatever differences you have between you and your buddy's story aren't HUGE.

This:

Remember that one time you blew up that fleet? "Yeah Thanaton was PISSED!"

could be this:

Remember that one time you saved Thanaton's lackey from your lazer? "No, I actually just blew him up too. Short story, Thanaton didn't like that and he kicked my ***!" Woah seriously? Well that guy turns up totally throwing in his cards with you and like Thanaton wants blood for it. XD "Aw man that's neat! Thank god we're inquisitors!"

 

Still you get to talk about your epic fight with Thanaton. But imagine if your decision there ended up having a different course. Like if you saved Thanaton's pal and he[Thanaton] ended up working for you? You can't say to your buddy that it was so neat seeing him grovel when your friend's already beat him to death. You'll have nothing in common. It becomes less of a shared-class and more of a what-did-you-do-in-your-single-player-game.

 

Like it or not, it's still an mmo. Even if it is pve centric. The game needs to be uniform enough that it doesn't feel like class is 100% not a multiplayer friendly system. Unfortunately, that's where those groundbreaking decisions get scrapped. It would be neat to see them really change the story, but it just isn't possible to keep the feel of a mmo, and not an xbox game on the pc with a singleplayer and multiplayer function.

 

What I'm trying to say is this isn't Borderlands in Star Wars. This is Star Wars the Old Republic, the MMO. It needs to act like a mmo, and it does. It's innovated the storylines enough that, on the first iteration of the system, it has a broad enough range for everyone to enjoy and play as close tot heir character as possible.

 

And there is that old saying, you try to please everyone and you please no one. There are enough options to keep the game cohesive; you can't expect any more than that.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Sivenom

[Guildrum]

I don't see anyone in this thread asking for things that occur inside story areas to carry on outside story areas. I see people complaining that the choices you make within the story areas has little to no effect upon what happens in later story areas. What everyone else in this thread is talking about can be accomplished without phasing, easily. What you seem to be talking about would be near-impossible to accomplish without phasing unless Bioware replaces a whole lot of storylines.

 

Except that a lot of decisions made in this game would have important effects like that. It'd basically be that while in isolated story areas, your decisions have great impact and could alter the direction of the story. But once you exit it, everything's situation normal. Not much different from the current system. I think another issue is keeping everything cohesive, as the previous poster said. Bioware has a story and they want to share it, they need every Trooper to defeat the Old Havoc Squad. They need every Smuggler to have their ship stolen and to kill Skavak. So there is a serious hamper to what Bioware can and cannot do with the story aspect of this. It's a shame, to be honest, but aside from making SWTOR into a "Choose your own adventure book", I do not know how it'd be remedied.

[wavyhill]

The game needs to be uniform enough that it doesn't feel like class is 100% not a multiplayer friendly system. Unfortunately, that's where those groundbreaking decisions get scrapped. It would be neat to see them really change the story, but it just isn't possible to keep the feel of a mmo, and not an xbox game on the pc with a singleplayer and multiplayer function.

The class quests (you know, one of the major selling points of the game that got hyped to hell and back) are already not multiplayer friendly since none of the people who aren't the mission holder have any say in what's going on. Also, it would be kinda nice if they ditched the "feel of an mmo," that persistent sense of "Man, I've done ALL of this before," is one of those things that really drags the game down.

 

It needs to act like a mmo

That belief has been largely responsible for the vast majority of the MMOs released after 2004 to be either very disappointing or flat out ruinously bad. It's sunk hundreds of millions of dollars of investment money and decades worth of labor. It's like saying that every car should be started with a hand crank just because the Model T was.

 

 

 

 

 

Except that a lot of decisions made in this game would have important effects like that. It'd basically be that while in isolated story areas, your decisions have great impact and could alter the direction of the story. But once you exit it, everything's situation normal. Not much different from the current system. I think another issue is keeping everything cohesive, as the previous poster said. Bioware has a story and they want to share it, they need every Trooper to defeat the Old Havoc Squad. They need every Smuggler to have their ship stolen and to kill Skavak. So there is a serious hamper to what Bioware can and cannot do with the story aspect of this. It's a shame, to be honest, but aside from making SWTOR into a "Choose your own adventure book", I do not know how it'd be remedied.

 

As I said, you're largely describing an issue of scope. Which is entirely the writers fault. It would be easy to have more carry over between stories if the stories being told were of a much more personal nature than they currently are.

[Sivenom]

The class quests (you know, one of the major selling points of the game that got hyped to hell and back) are already not multiplayer friendly since none of the people who aren't the mission holder have any say in what's going on. Also, it would be kinda nice if they ditched the "feel of an mmo," that persistent sense of "Man, I've done ALL of this before," is one of those things that really drags the game down.

 

 

That belief has been largely responsible for the vast majority of the MMOs released after 2004 to be either very disappointing or flat out ruinously bad. It's sunk hundreds of millions of dollars of investment money and decades worth of labor. It's like saying that every car should be started with a hand crank just because the Model T was.

 

 

 

As I said, you're largely describing an issue of scope. Which is entirely the writers fault. It would be easy to have more carry over between stories if the stories being told were of a much more personal nature than they currently are.

 

What you are missing here is context. The stories are class friendly right now. Why? Because each class knows what other people of the same class are doing. This was never about what my warrior buddy wants to say for my agent. By all rights, he shouldn't be there. He's a spectator for a reason. But my agent can waltz up to another agent and we'll both agree on every key point int he story.... because it was the same story for the same class for the same game. Again, this isn't Borderlands in Space. There are still critical points that do have a certain independence, but they don't throw you into a new game simply for choosing something or the other.

 

Another thing about critical reading, is that you have to understand the scope of what you're talking about. It's a handy skill.

 

SWTOR was never meant to be a single player game. It might *feel* that way to some because they're used to grinding rats in a dungeon to get to level 20, or they are used to playing their xbox. This is the first time bioware has made a multiplayer anything recently, so they struck out to innovate it. they did. They used a tried and true system to do it though, which was also a signature in their previous games. So, while this "novel" is written on paper with bioware's solo-play "watermark", it's still a whole new thing. It just has the flair.

 

But again.... this is an mmo. They've felt the same since everquest: kill stuff, group with players, kill bigger stuff, ???, profit. A single player is more like kill stuff, save world, be The One, ???, profit.

 

 

If it were any more personalized, it wouldn't be an mmo. you'd have to have designed a special snowflake moment for virtually everyone. Even with a lowball estimate of 300,000 players, do you have any conceivable idea of how much effort that would take?

[wavyhill]

What you are missing here is context. The stories are class friendly right now. Why? Because each class knows what other people of the same class are doing. This was never about what my warrior buddy wants to say for my agent. By all rights, he shouldn't be there. He's a spectator for a reason. But my agent can waltz up to another agent and we'll both agree on every key point int he story.... because it was the same story for the same class for the same game. Again, this isn't Borderlands in Space. There are still critical points that do have a certain independence, but they don't throw you into a new game simply for choosing something or the other.

Pardon me, but to me "multiplayer" has very specific connotations that mean "playing the game at the same time as someone else in an intentionally formed group." Not "being able to have a lot of similar reference points when I'm talking to someone about the game."

 

Additionally, I certainly wouldn't mind if I could have a discussion with another agent only to find out that both of our stories were radically different due to choices we made at pivotal points in the plot. It would provide a far deeper illusion of consequence than we currently have, and the downside of having fewer shared reference points would make it no different than trying to discuss the agent class story with say, a warrior.

 

Another thing about critical reading, is that you have to understand the scope of what you're talking about. It's a handy skill.

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about now.

 

SWTOR was never meant to be a single player game. It might *feel* that way to some because they're used to grinding rats in a dungeon to get to level 20, or they are used to playing their xbox. This is the first time bioware has made a multiplayer anything recently, so they struck out to innovate it. they did. They used a tried and true system to do it though, which was also a signature in their previous games. So, while this "novel" is written on paper with bioware's solo-play "watermark", it's still a whole new thing. It just has the flair.

This game is innovative? Pray tell, where is all of it? I see a couple of things that might be called innovative were they not tainted and weighed down with the Largely Pointless Shackles of "Because WoW Said So." Are you talking about the story thing? 'Cause if you're going to call that innovative I'm going to laugh derisively at you.

 

But again.... this is an mmo. They've felt the same since everquest: kill stuff, group with players, kill bigger stuff, ???, profit. A single player is more like kill stuff, save world, be The One, ???, profit.

Like I said before, blindly sticking to the DIKU paradigm promoted by EQ, WoW, and now SWTOR is choking the life out of the entire genre for little reason other than to please empty suits who have a crippling fear of even the smallest iota of risk. Nobody else is served by this.

 

 

If it were any more personalized, it wouldn't be an mmo. you'd have to have designed a special snowflake moment for virtually everyone. Even with a lowball estimate of 300,000 players, do you have any conceivable idea of how much effort that would take?

If it were any more personalized it would be more like what was promised to us by Biowares hype and marketing blitz. Just because you cannot provide a wholly unique experience for every single player does not mean that everybody needs to have an identical experience.

 

The illusion of choice is important to CRPGs and it's a department that this game comes up very short in. It's not terribly hard or expensive to produce the illusion of choice unless the developer mandates that each frame be made of a mix of gold dust, cocaine, and voice acting for filler "kill 10 womp rats" garbage.

Edited March 21, 2012 by wavyhill

[ilovethepink]

The most obvious situation where I've seen this is during Act 1 of the Consular Story.

 

 

When you learn the ritual to save your Master you are given a warning: "Doing this too much will kill you, every time you use the ritual part of your power is taken from you and is only returned when the Plaguemaster is dead", as is confirmed by the End-boss in Act 1 who says "How do you think the master of this ritual died?"

 

If you choose the light-side options in every world (Taris/Nar/Tat/Ald/Tyth) you will have performed the ritual 6 times (1 on Corusc which you have to perform). By this point, when you are fighting the Plaguemaster, you should be practically dying, not fighting as you do normally.

 

I was personally hoping for all of the Masters who I saved to fight my battle for me, or weaken the Plaguemaster enough so that the fight was even. Regardless of which options you chose (Light to use the Ritual, Dark to kill them) You still fight the end-boss in the same way: At full power and with no restrictions as SHOULD be in place according to what it said.

 

[Erian]

I do not see any problem with giving players different experiences due to choices we make. On the contrary, it would be a good thing. Why? Two simple words: replay value. It could helps player stay interested, thus helping the game developers retain subscriptions. Both sides benefit. It isn't something of great importance to every player, true, but during my time in WoW, I've heard lots of players, from pure raiders to primary roleplayers, moan about the utter boredom of grinding through the exact same quests again with a new character. Vastly different character types should have vastly different choices to make, leading to vastly different experiences. Anything that helps avoid the samey-same, been-there-done-that syndrome gets a thumbs-up from me.

 

As does increased immersion.

 

Not to mention that I do not see one having ONE aspect of the game diverge from the regurgitated-ad-nauseam MMO formulas could somehow make TOR a single-player game. You'd still have flashpoints, PVP, operations, chat channels, crafting and auctioning, guilds, roleplaying ... and this one new aspect that can help lure in people who don't normally go for all that for whatever reason.

 

@ilovethepink: Oh yes, full agreement there. It would admittedly be very hard to reflect that sort of "price" for being LS in the game mechanics without crippling the character over the course of the chapter, but at the very least the finale should reflect the premise of the whole thing, and having those you aided aid you in turn would be very satisfying and fit the LS theme.

[PanikSpreder]

Consequences are nothing without prober actions. The problem is that any action we take as a player does not lead into a sub-plot and make a huge impact on our "personal" story and most certainly not on the world (every story plot is instance based).

 

You can basically go through any of the main stories, picking whatever choice you like and still end up in the same ending. There are only small variations, like: a) Kill the traitor b) Forgive/spare him and never see him again. In the end, its the same.

 

Combine this with the fact that we cant kill off any of our companions or even change their behavior, we're stuck with a pretty linear experience. This is crystal clear if you reroll a character and try some of the "other" options. Its just fluff basically. Even if you do spare someone and they return a little later, they are either killed off or you never see them again.

 

A good start would be to re-introduce (yep, they removed it before release) the option to kill companions and modify their behavior to your liking. Vette as a healer? Sure! Quinn getting shot into space? Sure!

 

Its too late to change any of the main class stories now, but I do hope that in the following expansions they re-think what choices really should be about and how they pan out.