Oh the Ulan-Tan angle had more promise for sure. Darkness was just corrupted Light and we were meant to begin learning this in base D1. The Fallen on the moon called Guardians “the Darkness” in the base game. That tells us Darkness Baddie was some Uber Lightbearer gone evil. That’s why we had to sacrifice our power and why the Vanguard went corrupt. And I believe it was killed during the collapse. I think the Black Heart came from it and the Formless One was it surviving post death. A baddie so bad it survived death, Voldemort style. So we were meant to turn on/co-opt the Gardner and stop Light in order to stop Darkness and it was meant to end on that note. Wipe all threats (vex hive etc) then stop the Darkness with the cosmos going to normal afterwards. Rejecting godlike power in order to take control over our destinies and not be playthings to godlike beings. Ya know, philosophy and stuff. And during the journey it would be the shades of grey, doing wrong for right reasons, cosmic history and revelations. Instead we get this generic good vs bad story until the last leg where they decide to add some nuance to it that turns out to be little more than individual morality. Which was explored all the way in the base D1 with Warlords abusing Light. So it’s a real waste, cause all they really did was repeat the same stuff over and over.

[quote]I wouldn’t really corruption was a theme of Vanilla D1 at all, the closest to morality we get is the Exo Stranger telling us a side should be taken. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the Witness didn’t exist and the initial plan with Shadowkeep was the Winnower, which still raises the question of why ‘I’ and ‘we’ distinguish the Voice and the author of Unveiling. The only issue with playing around with corruption as it concerns the player character is that this is a live service looter game, we know for a fact nothing that game changing will ever happen as it would change too much. This is also why no matter how they executed it, short of actually giving us that ground shattering choice it’s going to fall flat. Forsaken was much better served by posing morality, even if most people were blinded by a hatred for Uldren Sov. Even if you were, the consequences of blinding chasing vengeance ended up resulting in the loss of the Dreaming City to perpetual, unending war. It’s like Season of the Witch. I don’t know about anyone else, but we’ve never been given reason to doubt our Eris before, so the whole angle about her becoming intoxicated by power didn’t land at all. Even Beyond Light does a good job of showcasing corruption and morality not through us, but Eramis. I still remember Variks losing his cool because she put innocents at risk to try and stop the Guardian.[/quote] Oh corruption was definitely in D1 but really only in the cards. Hive corruption being center in D1 gameplay, there very presence was called corruption. Especially when you view D1 within the context of THEN as opposed to NOW, after they’ve retconned everything to gel as well as it can. Rezzyl Azzir? Toland? Darkness was themed around corruption and being a negative influence. Our Ghost didn’t want us around Darkness objects. The Witness didn’t exist in D1. That’s why D1 has references to the Formless One and D2 doesn’t and instead we get the Witness. They took the fifth race and modified that into the Witness. Concept art is close enough to be source of inspiration. Oh you can theme corruption around the PC in a live service game. Live service has nothing to do with the narrative having a twist or turn, that’s choice driven games like Mass Effect. We’ve made one story related choice, Drifter or Aunor. Which ultimately meant nothing beyond a different set of lore tabs. It doesn’t fall flat if it flows naturally. It just requires proper storytelling, not minimal effort. The PC not talking is why it falls flat. I mean look at the premise. Anger over losing a friend and that you were right there, going against the Vanguard to pursue them, whittling down the list of targets, finding out corruption is at play, hunting him down and having him in your sights. We could of easily put one foot over the line but pulled back at the end with Ghost acting as our conscience like it was trying to do. But without the PC talking, we have a narrative gap. No insight to the mindset or motivations of the PC. The whole schtick of filling in the gaps yourself only works in a choice driven narrative. Cause otherwise you’re hemmed in and have to mental gymnastics, which prevents any immersion. The whole head cannon thing is a lazy cop out to keep the gameplay narrative generic and simple. I mean it takes more cutscene time, dialogue time and writing time to do it. So not doing it makes their job much simpler and quicker. They posed it but offered no stakes, no trials, no internal conflict. Nothing that actually revolves around internal morality. I mean the most we see is what? A hesitation? Ambiguity at the culmination of a morality trial? And the only stakes was risking a conflict with…an ally? Who couldn’t afford to fight us anyway? Nothing internal? A darkening of their Light? Anything? Nothing outward or inward. Nothing from anyone either. It wasn’t just Uldren being too hated, there was nothing there to make us feel that morality was an issue outside of your own morals about capital punishment.