ositoPERU, I think that's what the article is trying to say: that regardless of your "choice", it's really an illusion because the outcome of the game is ultimately the same. For example, in Dragon Age: Origins, no matter how you answer the questions, whether you get disapproval or approval from some party members, ultimately your character must end the Blight. How is this real choice when the outcome is the exact same? Sure, some parts of the outcome may be slightly different, but if I wanted to play an "evil" character, why wouldn't the choices include SIDING with the Blight rather than going against it? I think choice is 100% an illusion as developers do it now, and it's getting predictable. What if I wanted to be neutral in DA:O? So I choose not to aid the Templars or the Blight...that's a real life choice, right? People who ride the fence? Why couldn't that open up an entirely new story arch where people get ticked off that I'm sitting in the Mages' Tower being neutral, and come after me? I think choice right now in games is lazy, at best. Is it interesting and fun? Sure. But it's all an illusion because endings are almost identical, which really means no choices were made to properly affect the outcome. Sorry so long-winded, but I've been thinking a lot about games for a long, long time. :)