I loved Corypheus. I didnt understand why so many people hated him. His whole monologue in haven told you his goals, motivatios, and why he has them. I also think it was pretty sad when he called on Dumat near the end only to be meant with silence. I hope we haven't seen the last of him or the Architect. Two phenomenal character's in my opinion.
What you said about Corpheyus feels very true. I don't think many could articulate that point but you did it very well. I do think Corpheyus plan should have been a bit simpler and the whole god thing should have been either more subtle or introduced later. I do think though that sometimes it is fine to be complicated but it has be done with intention. But I do agree with you. Being simple and being cliché it is fine. It needs to be done with intention, and be done well.
I can apply this lesson very clearly to my D&D campaigns. I have a tendency to overcomplicate plots and motivations, and it sometimes falls flat in the areas I put the most work into.
Interesting video! One thing I have found I appreciate in games is simplicity on the surface, but complexity beneath it, especially as it comes to narrative. On the surface, a straightforward plot like Dragon Age: Origins seems simple, but layered underneath it are these wonderfully complex sub-plots and themes. It rewards those who deep dive and read/listen/explore.
Throughout the Dragon Age Trilogy, I have always been captivated by the incredible work that BioWare has done. One can always count on the fact that their games never fail to impress due to their intricate complexity. As an example, I consistently appreciate the fairness in their approach of providing explanations to the lore, while also including an extensive amount of lore in the codex to further elaborate. The extensive time I have invested in thoroughly reading and analyzing this codex has allowed me to acquire a level of expertise in the Dragon Age universe that goes beyond what the average DA player possesses. Here is another example that I will give you. Mass Effect features a primary codex that provides an audio explanation of the game, and there is also a secondary codex that does not have voice-over but offers a more in-depth explanation through text. The reason why I appreciate this approach is because it caters to both casual gamers who simply want to have a good time playing the game, as well as dedicated players like myself who are deeply invested in the game’s lore and have numerous questions that can be answered by the second codex.
My answer to your first question is actually Inquisition, haha, so I'm very glad you made this video. Please be aware that I loved the lore and most characters, it was just the 'main' story that lost me for reasons you said. Not lost in confusion, just lack of interest as key things were not conveyed well. Let the scene direction and writing carry the story, even if it's "simple", if those things are done well, the emotional impact and interest will be there and more appreciated. My answer to your second question on the positive side: The first Mafia game. The most basic and cliche Mafia story you could imagine, still one of the best in memory of many because it's just done so well (again, story only, many things like gameplay can affect player perception). My favourite stories aren't ones I had to read 5 extra books or google a cutscene to understand what's going on, they are ones that immediately connected with me and conveyed their story and messages efficiently with great character writing and scene direction.
The first time I played the game I understood Corypheus' motivativations, because he told the Herald what they were the first time they met. All his actions afterwards made sense through that lens.
For me nothing is more mind numbing than hearing a big bad monologue their motives --- motives aren't where interest should come from. in the 2008 flick Speed Racer the big bad has a wonderful speech but it's not the speech itself that matters --- we know the guy has a simple motive, greed, understanding the details isn't important and that comes through brilliantly. What matters are the consequences to Speed and his family. Speed is transformed by the badguy's simple motives from naive kid into world wise adult --- will he die in the process? Lose his values and family like his brother did? Or will he hold on to them? i didn't feel that Corypheus was pressuring the Herald's core values in any way --- not that it matters, i love that game in spite of the Corypheus element.
I think Corypheus is a much compelling villain that many fans make it out to be. He is an ancient magister that, searching for god, found out It didn't exist, and for ages he was left wondering why was he punished for it.
This sounds like a very interesting description of Corypheus , but I will admit that to me, while I was playing the game, it didn't really come across. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention? Keeping things simple like Mark mentionned for sure is one possibility, but I also feel like the game could perhaps have communicated all of this in a more impactful way
@@mm-gagnon7910 "I once breached the Fade in the name of another, to serve the Old Gods of the empire in person. I found only chaos and corruption. Dead whispers. For a thousand years I was confused. No more. I have gathered the will to return under no name but my own, to champion withered Tevinter and correct this blighted world. Beg that I succeed, for I have seen the throne of the gods, and it was empty." This whole dialogue tells you everything you need to know about Corypheus. It's fucking awesome and unfortunately it's the only one we get.
@@mm-gagnon7910 I've felt the same about Loghain--he's a really interesting dude with really cool motivations but if you just play through Origins he seems like a one-note mustache twirler. A part of me loves that the game lets you misunderstand him so badly; it feels very realistic.
@@vVRichardVv The thing is: too much said in too little time! We are playing a survival mission, and then suddenly all that happens. There is no recap later on. And the whole final objective ("to champion withered Tevinter and correct this blighted world") is voiced in a way that feels like a secondary thing in his plan, not the very essence of it. That dialog is written very well, but as a game that presents it with no way of recalling those exact words, it summarizes too tightly that even a simple phrase not getting across means not understanding everything that we'd need to at least make real sense of what he is trying to do.
90% unrelated but you brought up Corypheus: I always thought his intro could’ve been handled better. It should’ve just been him showing up with the dragon like he does in the cutscene. Instead the first time we get a good look at him, he’s standing practically in the background while his army charges Haven. It’s not a huge thing, but every time I replay DAI I think of how much cooler it would be if the first time we see him is when he emerges from the dragon’s flames.
In addition to making something confusing, adding complexity to something can take away its mystique. When you were describing the Phoenix' powers needing a scientific backing, I immediately thought of Star Wars. The prequel trilogy infamously included dialogue about "midi-chlorians" to give the Force a pseudo-scientific explanation. Rather than making it more interesting by adding complexity and scientific backing, it just sapped the magic out of the Force and turned into something that sounded more like a viral infection.
Ha ha ha couldn't agree more, that single line took so much power/awe from the force, also it seemed like such a shoehorn scene, I always like to think it was just Qui-Gon telling Anakin something to shut the brat up :D
I think I lean to the opposite in terms of what I like, I'm more quick to eyeroll if I see a bunch of clichés in a simple story than I am to get a headache from one that's putting in a lot of work. That being said, I do think the way games sometimes tell/introduce those 'complex' stories can often need work; if you're thrusting me into a new fantasy world and proper nouning everything at the start of your game then the starting stories of that game should be simple ones, no way I'm remembering the encyclopedia right off the bat. Mass Effect 1: It's all about Saren, does this quite well (and DA:I: It's all about Corypheus to a similar extent). And Dragon Age: Origins' origin stories do it in a cooler unique way where the player basically gets to pick what chapter of the encyclopedia knowledge interests them at the start of the game and then experience a 'simple' story hyperfocused on that one chapter. edit - and to use a more recent example, Baldur's Gate 3 does this masterfully as well. New fantasy world, lots to learn, beautifully complex story with lots of layers, but it all starts off with just "get this tadpole out of my head!"
In most games the bad guy doesn't interact with the world at all, they just appear at the end as the final boss. Everything we know about them are through 3rd party narratives and cut scenes. So, it is easier to understand their motive and why they're bad guys. But in Dragon Age, the bad guy does take part as the story goes. Loghain for example, sabotaging the main character all the way from Ostagar to The Landsmeet. What makes him more complicated is the game gives a choice to spare him in the end. There are two things here, it is clear that Loghain did everything out of his paranoia and past trauma with Orlais, but what is his motivation to sabotage the main character? It is never clear on why he hates us so much, just because we are Grey Warden, or we know what he's doing in Ostagar, or we are a threat to his power, or what? Secondly, why would the main character spare him after all he done? Yes, Riordan a senior Grey Warden suggesting to recruiting Loghain is a good thing, but do we really have any reason at that point and moment to spare his life? The game doesn't provide a good reason for that. Players might justify on why they spare Loghain but it is anti-climactic, Loghain get away with his crimes. I think he's the only bad guy who can escape justice 😆 My point is, as complicated as Loghain might be, as the player of this game, I never see Loghain anything other than a mad man. So, in the end, there is no reason for him being made complicated. In the next game, Varric gives a simple narrative of Loghain betrayal, Loghain is a traitor, that's all, nothing complicated about it.
One of my favorite series, gears of war, does this very well. The game plot are basic as they can be but you can dig way deeper but it never invalidates the basic beats of the plot or treat those who stops at that level as stupid
This is a good point. As much as I do enjoy stories that reward further exploration, on my first go through, I am usually not looking that broadly. There is so much to absorb, and I am on a more zoomed in view of things than I probably ever will be again. After I'm done, and if I ever replay, that's when the lore and the meta gaming comes in. It's nice having a simple enough framework of an overarching story that I don't have to keep going "Wait, why was I doing this again?" and can just focus on being my character navigating the world. Then, you can hang additional depth onto that framework.
I enjoy a complicated plot and cleaver plot twists in both video games and anime, as long as it’s written well and there is some sort of build up as well as hints.
With corypheus, i always thought him be worshipped as a god came before him wanting to bring tevinter back to its prime. I read that wrong. Though i thought him being an invincible enemy had to be front and foremost. I always thought wisdom was the underlying story of inquisition. That you had to outsmart this enemy, that could not be killed. Then you needed a character with wisdom to lead the inquisition and make these choices. That led to his eventual defeat. So yeah, i got his priorities wrong, i get your point about making things a clear path when following your story.
1:30 I didn't get that he wanted to restore The Tevinter. I always viewed his goal in religious terms. He viewed the old gods of the Imperium as false, there was no one in the Black City. So he will become the god that he deserved all along. Maybe I wasn't paying attention ^^;
Me too. They sewed his words in a perfect manner, but so perfect, that even not absorbing immediately a single phrase could mean missing something that was necessary for truly understanding his plans. And thinking that we have that conversation after a survival mission, with lots of adrenaline, then it's very understandable why we missed this simple part, especially since it's not what gets the most highlight in the way that dialog is presented.
i'm a big fan of James Cameron's Avatar flicks --- while detractors complain about what they perceive as a lack of plot complexity (they like movies where good guys turn out to be bad guys and mcguffins turn out to be pointless) the real complexity comes from the emotions of the characters themselves. The success of Avatar comes down to its universal themes, its approachability, the idea of connection with others. And it's the same in DA inquisition, what's so delicious about that game is the personal stories, the relationships, and the motives of individuals not named "Corypheus".
One of the things I've liked about Bioware games is the top level, cliched build of many of the pieces. It gives the player an easy reference to interact with the game and learn the systems. If I enjoy the game I end up replaying it, then the nuance of the constructions begins to show, the pieces gain depth, encouraging additional play and discovery. Even Cory had some of that, although too much of this was hidden in codex entries. Perhaps Cory needed more show and less tell. This is one issue I have with BG3, act 1 was good, I can tell they spent a good amount of time in early access, and there is depth to the pieces. Alas the later acts were more rushed, and little nuance is evident. Perhaps staying with the simple, cliched build on top will avoid chasing off those who are only going to play once, leaving the more subtle points to be teased out for those who really want to dig in, and doing that might convince some of the former to join the latter group.
9:28 totally. A cliche with a DA coat of paint on it can just be as interesting and enjoyable. I’d imagine its familiarity benefits not just the audience, but the team putting it all together
Corypheus was such a missed opportunity. A living window to ancient Thedas, the Black City and The Taint, but he ended up being just some evil mage we had to stop from doing evil mage things. A regular tevinter magister with unusually big aspirations would have filled that role better.
@@LudonautaWell he did confirm that the throne of the gods was "empty" and black. Also calling the qunari a "mistake" gives us more mystery into the origins of the myths.
@@reffa2858 we already knew that since Legacy: "The light. We sought the golden light. You offered the power of the gods themselves. But it was black, corrupt. Darkness, ever since."
When I first laid eyes on Corpheyus all I could think about was how be became so altered and deformed as nothing about his appearance looked 'intentional'. Also on the game-informer video I left 2 comments under yours and they are *gone* Forgive me for whatever was assumed I am simply....excited....to return to the world that, in my eyes, handles the inclusion of magic in the most realistic way I've had the pleasure of seeing in a fantasy setting. I adore the narrative idea of the circles they are such a compelling and 'natural' occurrence for people that have the ability to conjure storms and shoot fire especially with the ideals of the Chantry. The only issue I had with Corpheyus himself was HOW what his sources of magic were however, such things were revealed as I was lucky enough to stumble upon a dialogue conversation with Dorian annnndddddd a believe Vivienne. Looking forward to consuming more of your knowledge.
In the context of Corypheus' "get back to the Black City and claim the throne of a god" plan, I understood both Adamant and Halamshiral to be kinda what he was doing with the mages and templars: either suborn or remove any major source of opposition to his actual plan.
The bigger problem, then, is that the player never gets to directly attack the "become a god" part of the plan until the Arbor Wilds. And even there, you don't know *why* he needs the Arbor Wilds until after you get there. From the player's perspective, you kinda blunder into it by figuring out that there's *something* there he wants.
@@MarkDarrah even if you take out the “restore the Imperium” stuff, it all makes sense in the context of the “become a god” plan. It’s just all indirect. It works as a sort of Gray Warden playbook in reverse; if the Wardens have to gather allies to stop Archdemons, Corypheus needs to either have all the plausible allies working for him (ideally) or at minimum not working together.
I generally don't prefer cardboard cutout villains, like Palpatine in Star Wars original trilogy, when an antagonist is evil for the sake of being evil. Cory is a little bit more complicated, but I still think he was too one dimensional to be a compelling villain. I think Obsidian did a really great job with Kreia, or Bioware with TIM. But I guess it depends on what the focus point is in your story, not every villain needs to be fleshed out and have complex motivations. For example in Uncharted 4 Rafe is very simple, but it serves the story well. In Naughty Dog's other franchise, more specifically Last of us 2 you cannot even pinpoint who the antagonist is, but that is sort of the purpose of the narrative, and it also works really great for what they were trying to achieve.
"Elves are oppressed. That's great." :) But seriously, I'd like to think that most of us appreciate how difficult it must be to have world building make prima facie sense, and still provide depths to explore. Thank you for sharing your insights.
I replied to a post about dialogue, but if the plot is complicated, like Inception movie complexity, I don’t mind it as long as great dialogue and acting is present. Dragon age does this well, and gives me and my wife replay ability. We still debate on the on the story, big decisions that are made through the game. To me there’s more than one plot to the entirety of dragon age, with all the shit going on. If the dialogue is bad, the plot is just not engaging to me. IMO of course. Open to criticism.
So, Corypheus's plan is to make Tevinter great again? This makes him weaker for me. I remember a similar antagonist in the comics. He tried to use the blood of dragons to control the world through fade. I always thought that Corypheus was trying to give God to everyone. For Tevinter who lost old gods. For Thedas who believes in a non-existent, in his opinion, Maker. Well. Okay
Its easy to get caught up with everything, so I've learned to keep things simple. Nice video, and I always got a good laugh when Sarah would butcher corypheus name lol
My favorite enemy in Dragon Age inquisition was the envy demon. It was simple in that demons are bad, killing demons is justified, and it's the embodiment of a particularly ugly sin. Where the complexity came in was in it wanting to steal your face, showing you visions in the fade of warped realities, and giving you a personal reason to kill that thing. I love in the final fight with it when it says "What could I gain from being you? *Everything*!" I think that's added a few extra layers that really makes a difference. That's how I felt about Corypheous in Dragon Age 2. Honestly, I was a little confused playing inquisition the first time when he showed up again and was kind of a d-bag just messing stuff up. Not that I didn't like him then, I'm honestly fine with a bad guy who's bad for the sake of being bad, but it felt like he needed another layer or two to really make him special. I think it really depends on how complexity or simplicity is implemented. Where your Phoenix powers might not need such a complex justification for what they do, your corypheous could use a little love with layers and nuance 😃 just my thoughts. Cool video Mark!
Yeah, it was exhausting. But I feel like in the Corypheus case it made him less impactful. If it had been in Skyhold, for example, it would definitely solidify him as a threat.
I loved Corypheus in Dragon Age II's DLC Legacy. We are led to believe that he is pure evil. He manipulates others to get his way. Then when we meet him, he is confused and lashes out. A player could feel bad for the villain only to find out that we were just as manipulatable as the Carta, since he took control over the Grey Warden's body. When he came to Inquisition, I feel as if I wanted too much from Corypheus after that entrance into the fans eyes via Legacy. It may have made me more critical of how he was doing things. Although I have to say hearing you say that his desire to prop up Tevinter is news to me, I thought he considered Tevinter a lost cause and was just using the Venatori for his goal of Godhood.
The idea that Corypheus was trying to restore the Tevinter Imperium doesn't make much sense. His Tevinter was a very different society from thousands of years ago. It'd be like a revived Julius Caesar trying to whip Medician Florence into shape. It would have made more sense for Corypheus to use modern-day Tevinter as a means to acquire enough power to once again break into heaven and become a god. Magisters throughout Imperium history were known to be selfish individuals willing to sacrifice the good of the State in their selfish pursuit of power, and none more so than those who bled the empire dry acquiring enough blood to storm the Golden City.
I enjoyed Inqusition but I like an antagonist that is fleshed out even more. Unfortunately you only get a bit more insight on him if you follow the Templar path. He really isn’t a threat after Haven and you win every encounter. Loghain, Arishok and Meredith were all well written, multiple interactions helped define things more. Orsino randomly freaking even though you won a battle and Corypheous being a cartoon villain weren’t good unfortunately. I think Legacy set him up as an interacting character but not sure he was a good enough villain for an entire game unless we lost more skirmishes or learned more about him. I’ll be curious to see if Dragon Age re-visits any of the other magisters out there in the deep roads. I assume the architect is alive no matter what since he kept Velenna’s blighted sister around, likely body hopped like Corypheous could.
Prototype's web of intrigue was unintellegible. "Retrieve small memory fragments that you can't see again in a random order to understand wtf is going on" I'm still puzzled on who came up with this idea.
On point with the Corypheus! He always felt bland to me, on each playthrough. Kinda like Marvel villain, just being a Big Baddy for the sake of it, wanting power, world domination, becoming God etc... At the end, when we find out he was just being used as a pawn in a grander scheme kinda explains some things and makes him look even less formidable (and that awful boss fight against him didn't do him any right). Still, never really cared about main villains in DA games - apart from the archdemon. He really felt like end of the world kind of threat, felt urgent, also very emotional no matter which origin you choose. Arishok was cool in DA2, Meredith appeared out of nowhere, Orsino - jeeez... But yeah, Da was always about the party and the story you make with them. Cant wait for DAVe, just give us the preorder already!!! 😅
Dragon Age Inquisition were missing the investigation of the main story. Do not understand the entire map that is in the desert with the Dwarven ruined city. Interesting but it removed the importans of the Grand Cathedral and with the new engine it would have been very interesting. A lot of maps didn't really bring anything in the story and most of the playing Inquisition.
I'm trying to think of a game that overcomplicated itself until I gave up on it, but the only thing that comes to mind is Death Stranding & I loved that and played it until the end. I don't think I could coherently describe the plot of it, even the core elements--Sam's extremely convoluted parentage, for example--but I think the game is smarter than a lot of people give it credit for, I think the whole thing hangs together surprisingly well, and I think it would be a worse game if you tried to simplify it. My biggest plot-related disappointment in the past few years was Horizon: Forbidden West & it might fit the bill. Horizon Zero Dawn managed to make a pretty absurd premise feel logical and relatable and emotionally compelling. By the end of Forbidden West, though, I was rolling my eyes--the final reveals were such a disappointment.
I put hundreds of hours onto DA:I over the years, and honestly, if asked to explain Corypheus' goal I'd just say he was trying to enter the Fade - for reasons... I'd have had to go into far more detail to start addressing bringing back Tevinter glory. That's just never the vibe or narrative framing I think of. I enjoyed DA:I well enough, and loved some of it, but I was always very disappointed in Corypheus. I felt he lost some sense of identity and character from DAII. And he pretty much just keeps messing up and getting his ass kicked. So I'm not sure whether I'd have said complexity, specifically, was the issue. If anything, the Big Bad felt overly simplistic. A lack of focus and balance between the story of the Inquisition and the metaphysical threat was the real wobble. Especially as the *real* threat only truly pops up in the epilogue expansion. Some phenomenal character narrative saved DA:I for me. Any mention of Jade Empire II is bittersweet. It still feels like such a distinct game even now.
@@MarkDarrah If i would remake DAI, Corypheus would attack skyhold. Also the HC would get more of Corypheus past over Dorians connection with Tevinter (Maybe only if you make his personal quest). Corypheus needed more time in this long game. If you make every side quest, you will forgot the enemie you are fighting with.
Adding complexity for the sake of adding complexity generally doesn’t improve a story. A simple story with depth will be more impactful than a huge, complex story that doesn’t tie things together. I do think the main story in Inquisition was not the strongest part of the game and part of that was the lack of clarity in the main character’s motivations as well as the villain’s. The two should have been working in tandem. If Corypheus’ main goal was political power, our player character should have had a motivation to curb or counter the political power he was accruing. But our goal was mainly to prevent Cory from tearing the heavens open and Cory’s main goal appeared to be “become a god”. When the confrontation happened at Haven and Corypheus accused the player of being a pretender, it was not clear what he meant. Our goal until that point had been to close the breach. Getting political power was a side quest. Becoming a god wasn’t on the docket. Trespasser did improve the story because of how Solas’ goals mirrored Corypheus’. That could have been worked into the main game better, in my opinion. I would have welcomed the increased Solas dialogue that would have been involved in that. Fortunately the companions are all absolutely fantastic and the world was very pretty. The game also spawned an entire cottage industry for lore analysis on the internet. Maybe that wouldn’t have existed if the story were more straightforward.
@@MarkDarrah I see the scaffolding for a really good story even with the immortal god emperor motivation…but I’ll save it for the stories I write to entertain myself instead imposing unsolicited story ideas on you. You probably get that a lot.
Am I the only one who actually enjoys complicated plots and smart moves in games? I love spending a lot of time digging into different theories after I finish the game and see what I didn't notice in the first walkthrough
Complexity is very nice, it's impressive! But if the storytelling doesn't make all the layers of that complexity clear, then the game just feels confusing or arbitrary. In many occasions, a short and complex story is worse than one long and full of simple beats. But even then the players must fully understand how their actions are making a difference for the story, because otherwise it just feels like you're padding the game out.
As long as the dialogue presented in the plot is good, then I think the story is great. Andromeda failed because the dialogue wasn’t written very well, which made the plot “simple” and not very engaging.
Yeah, I kept trying to think of counter arguments as I was listening but I honestly think those were all ways of making my actual (and ironically very simple) opinion sound smarter. The truth is I just love complicated plots with lots of moving parts. But I also think that the art for both the complicated and the simple plots ends of being in making the thing interesting. With a very simple plot, you have fewer elements and so the stakes are so high for each one--you can't miss. I find that kind of terrifying.
Where does dark souls and else ring fit into this. Also mass effect story is cartoonishly simple, yet the details of the world and interaction of character make up for it, as the plot is just an excuse to link them together. That's probably the idea, a simple structure that makes disparate elements fit together, creating an illusion of complexity, basically like a corridor leading to rooms.
So in this section you talk about the "most" playerbase of a game. But what about the "the most thinking" part of players? They tend to dive into lore as much as they can and understand as much. But what when the lore is so complex as in Dragon Age? Mostly its totally fine to have "lore players" get their deep lore part, and most others - theirs, they dont interfere. But the lore is a core of a universe at the same time, and when you dive deep as a storyteller you have to face that "lore playerbase". And if years pass you may want to change something, because as you said you were too long with it, yet at the same time players (not knowing it) delve deeper in lore they can see and start to expect. And then we suddenly meet the point where a part, long been just lore thing, becomes the core theme of a game. Now there are evanuris as antagonists, but not ones many expected to see, because they were thinking about lore for so long, they decided they know the answers (no matter if they really do or not). And so the question is"who fooled who?" The players fooled themselves with overthining, or the developers - the players with loosing the "lore players"? And what should developers do to avoid such situations?
@@MarkDarrah And do you think deep lore should be a core theme of a game part of series? Or may be the deep things should keep being deep and not at the facade like the antagonists. For example as Zenimax does in Elders Scrolls Online, implementing deep lore into expansions.
The gamers I play Dragon Age with see 10x more complexity than is actually there. 😂 Some of it is wishful thinking. But all of it is attached to at least one root in the core someplace. Your point is right on, though. The stories that don't work so well are ones told through lore and codex, and item descriptions. I don't think the majority of Elden Ring players can articulate the story. People don't have enough reading fluency, it is a lack-of-practice issue. But also, a visual story should be more "show" than tell, especially in action games. I think most Final Fantasy games are a mess, story-wise. Teenagers just end up feeling the emotions of the characters. Nier/Drakongard the same, but somewhat self-serving the characters who are themselves lost in a complex world. A simple story? Crash Bandicoot. Super Mario the plumber. Potion Permit has a very basic cliche' story.
Did setting DA:I in an open world contribute to making Corfey Face's motivations overly complicate? To answer you ending question, I think the endings to Mass Effect 3 lost me. Specifically, how to make the ending choices and the in-world logic for how it worked. For each option mentioned, there was a "flashback" (that wasn't a flashback) showing someone doing something in/to the crucible, but the significance wasn't clear. Instead, some overhead icon with text indicating the choice would have been simpler. Cliche? Maybe, but intelligible. Speaking of intelligible, the logic behind the mechanics for the choice (shooting the tube, grabbing bushings, or jumping into an energy beam) added to the confusion. How do these actions alter the end result? Up until that point, the sci-fi supporting the trilogy didn't give me anything to draw from where these made sense. Just my two cents.
As much as I loved Inquisition for its character relationships and showing both the importance of faith and dangers of institutionalising it, Corypheus was really a missed opportunity. In addition to what Mark pointed out, I never felt like it was adequately explained exactly what Corypheus thought he would practically accomplish by getting into the Golden/Black City properly. He would technically be worshipped as a God. Okay, but then what? Why not just rule on land as a dictator with your large army and majestic powers? In hindsight, I think it would have been more compelling to see Corypheus just try to amass more land and be a world dictator. It would have been intriguing to hear his speeches and juxtapose the kind of leader he is with the kind of leader we’re making ourselves into as the Inquisitor.
Players will worm out the confusing/overcomplicated things. It just happens. To wit: Honestly, the thing that I have the hardest time understanding about Corypheus was "Why Justinia?" Being the pope of the chantry didn't confer magical properties/powers on her: she was just another person. I can be convinced that he had to perform the ritual sacrifice in the Temple of Sacred Ashes because the lyrium that was there and there was some sort of localized power that he needed to unlock the orb, BUT it seemed like the smarter thing to do would have been to grab some random janitor who wouldn't have a bunch of bodyguards and wouldn't be missed and sacrifice them. All other explanations for Why Justinia either get into real stringboard (Is Justinia actually a lost descendant of Andraste _who was actually an old god baby from the first blight)_ or that Corypheus was planning on the ritual going wrong and that he would have to decapitate the Chantry in that eventuality--but he didn't strike me as being THAT careful a planner to have that backup in mind. He was convinced that he'd do the ritual, open the door to the fade, walk in and become a god--there wouldn't have been much the Chantry could have done to stop him. Risking everything on a high-profile target just doesn't add up. This is not something that a normal player would consider. 😆
