I just finished DA:I for a second time , though it is probably the last time for me i guess. There's just not much replayability in Dragon Age Inquisition. Even though i haave finished games like Dragon Age Origins for like 5 times i still cant bring myself to finish other RPGs a second time. Why is that? I believe the answer is that the devs themselves hurt the replayability of their products by throwing our characters into the "good side". Alot of game developers seem to think that just because the protagonist is going to beat a big baddie, then they're automatically doing a good deed and hence are naturally put onto the good team. Take these two games made by the same company : Dragon Age : Origins Dragon Age : Inquisition Now, lets take a look at what happens inside these games. Inside the first game we see our protagonist rising too become a Grey Warden and gain new allies to fight the blight. The protagonist is not fighting the blight because he is good and the blight is evil, but rather he is fighting it because the blight's ultimate goal is to wipe out the other sentient beings, including the protagonist. Now the protagonist can be a classic goody two shoes character or a very cruel sadistic man, or a greedy fellow who may even sell his own kin, but in the end they defeat the blight because it poses an existential threat to them. The third game is different because it automatically throws you into the good camp. Because you're fighting Corypheus, and are dubbed the leader of the inquisition. The option of doing stuff the evil way is gone and instead you have the choice of being a strict good guy who punishes people accordingly and harshly or a kind caring figure who shows mercy to guilty folks. As if there cant be an overzealous , cruel and strict organization which despite all its harshness is capable og dealing with a great threat with an iron first. Im not sure why the devs do this, is it on purpose? why do they automatically assume that in order to beat a malificent evil being one has to be on the side of greater good? We only have to have conflicting goals and ideas that are against eachother's interests. Take fallout for example. In 1 and 2 we were facing enemies with strict racist views, they viewed all the other races (us included) as inferior and we had no other choice but to kill them lest they would've killed us and our kin. That didnt mean we were a good guy, heck we could've done fallout 2 while having several towns sacked and left alot of dead corpses scattered throughout the wasteland. We were by no means a good or white character just because we killed the master or the enclave. Lets go back to a classic : planescape. Planescape is a prime example of why beating a big baddie doesn't neccesarily mean we are a good character. We could've been an absolute terrible person, the antagonist didn't oppose us because of our personality but simply because of what we were. And a final confrontation was inevitable no matter what our personality was. So my question is why alot of developers try to avoid giving players the option of being evil? Because most of the time in RPGs the enemies tend to have goals which we view as malicious because they oppose a fundamental charactristic of our character. A racist person is still going to hate an african american no matter what personality he has.