I've been thinking about this yesterday and whether should post it... I've decided I will. Very rare nowadays for games to have proper consequences, and games claiming consequences the consequences feel scripted and not like you did something, as much as I love Dragon Age series, I'll admit this was the case here. The world didn't seem to change or develope.

I'll provide another example Skyrim, Helgen is sacked, yet it's not taken back and rebuilt during your play through, slowly becoming more livable? Compare this to Oblivion where you have a town built in your play through after you done the necessary quests. Or even Black Horse Courier has some recognition of what you did, both good and bad. Games that lately claim to have consequences for actions, nothing, they just seem half-hearted and or half-finished, as all choices should have Yes, no or neutral, neutral being one you don't side with them, nor do you hate them.

Is this making sense, I've just woken up, so hoping it is kinda.

RPGs should have tangible consequences and choices, and most of the time you don't get that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I long for games like Torment where your choices matter, like damning a city to non-existence.

To be fair, many players grew used to hearing voiced dialogues and "average" graphics.
It's hard to do many consequences (apart from two) when you need to record all the new dialogue and make new (and good) textures/meshes and etc...

I'm not saying Graphics and Voiced Dialogue are bad things (For me they, with some good "Idle" Sounds, really help with immersion, specially in a First-Person Game), I'm just saying that it made things more difficult than they were in the 90's.

Its a very difficult thing to do, im playing Kingdom of amalor and there is soooooooo much dialogue ive got to the point of going skip skip skip, to play out real situations would take lots of asides in the storyline with buckets of dialogue, but with Computer RPG's its a difficult balance between drawing out a scene, if you wanted real life, you can just wake up in the morning, thats what it'd be like, in some ways it would extend a game so its not the sort of game you bring home and finish it in a few hours or days.

I think Skyrim is a good example of something they could have done well, if they'd taken alot more time, if i made a list this post would be huge, needless to say it lacked any recognition of your character or consequences for being a thief or an evil hired killer, but then again nobody seemed to notice i saved them from the dragons. As much as people criticise mass effect it at least recognises your actual achievements and you do pay for making mistakes, such as ashley not wanting to join you after you join Cerberus, especially after me1, its touches like that, that add to a game, but it could do better but it would also make it more drawn out, but you actually do get to stop and chat, and it does change as the story progresses, and thats why i like the way they do their story.

Im playing pen and paper Dark heresy based on the warhammer 40k universe, you work for an inquisitor, we got attacked by eldar, or zeno's and one of the players wanted their long rilfe, of course its heresy to possess zenotech, you can be imprisoned, mindwiped if they find you slightly important but generally they just kill you for your heretical actions, in game it was along discussion as to killing the player and the importance of the mission, because basically if we didnt do the mission we died, if we let him have the rifle we were complicate in a crime and would be put to death, that was 2 weeks worth that the discussion went on for, try putting those sort of actions into a computer game.

Not really, it's just that Bethesda has lost its touch (years ago if you ask me). The guys from CD Projekt (The Witcher 1 & 2) do an amazing job at combining awesome graphics and voiced dialogue with great player choices, of which you sometimes don't see the consequences until much later in the game, but when you do they can be severe. The problem is not with graphics and voiced dialogue, it's just that the amazing developers of yesterday are not as good as they used to be.

The problem with choices in games is that the more you make the harder it is to keep track of them all. It's a nightmare, especially ensuring they all interact well and make sense.

Really, there's a sweet spot in terms of the number of decisions a player can make. Too few and it'll seem like you aren't allowed to have a say in what happens. Too many and you'll end up not caring about the choice.

So what's often done, especially in larger RPGs, is the illusion of choice.

I'd say that Fallout: New Vegas gives the most consequences I've seen recently in an RPG. The reputation system really helps in the endeavor to make your choices meaningful and having only one or two invincible characters also makes it possible to close off multiple quests by killing someone.

You criticize Skyrim for not having Helgan rebuilt and then you praise Oblivion for building a two building settlement? Clearly you forgot about Kvatch, you know, the second biggest city in Cyrodil that is constantly on fire while it's guards sit in the throne room not doing a damn thing. I was at least happy to see Helgan was taken over by bandits.

Erm... what? The Witcher 2 had good voiced dialogue and graphics? That's not how I remember it.

You're really going to try to argue the opposite? I agree about the dialogue, though; it's mostly nothing special.

It's about game developers putting in the least possible effort for the most possible money, that's all. And games that offer you choices and consequences are "geeky"/"nerdy"/"boring", so they don't sell as well as games where you just kill, break and/or simply watch stuff happen.

They also cost more to make. Why put in all that effort when you can just make a sociopath simulator and watch the money wash over you?

That's why I'm playing New Vegas. It's full of immersion, consequences, and unique quests.

I also find it annoying when people compare the Witcher or Witcher 2 to Skyrim. One is linear and one isn't.

Better than Bethesda in both regards. Or did you think Oblivion and Skyrim had better voiced dialog and graphics?

At least you saw something built, not a whole city mind, but you did see a somewhere built overtime.

I greatly agree with the OP. This lack of choices and consequences has severely diminished the RPG genre, in my opinion, and it's disheartening.

Everything doesn't always get rebuilt. The bandits took the place over and I guess the legion decided there where more important things to do then retaking a destroyed village from a gang of bandits.

Which is why I say after Civil War quest, to show that things are returning to normality in Skyrim, you get quest to clear them out.