Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
CHOICES WITH CONSEQUENCES: WHY?
Posts
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
LockeZ
View playlists
CloseI was watching a game design video about choice and consequence in video games. The idea applies most obviously to western RPGs, but also potentially to any game that focuses on delivering a story.
The video, in which MrBtongue mostly rants for ten minutes about how good Fallout 1 is.
The idea in this video is that simulation and replayability are the two main reasons to focus on choice and consequence in a game, or at least the main ones. These certainly seem to be things that both reviewers and developers love to bring up as selling points.
It's easy to understand why he likes the idea of simulating a world. Immersion is a powerful tool, and drawing the player into a consistent and realistic world can create a powerful level of connection to the game. It's easy to become lost in a game when you really believe in it, and hard to do so when something uncanny breaks your immersion. Additionally, the idea that art imitates life has been around for millenia - statues and paintings that perfectly depict things from the real world with exquisite attention to detail and realism are considered to be excellent works of art. And these arguments for realism don't just apply to graphics; they apply equally to the story, and especially to the way the player interacts with the world to shape that story. If cause and effect don't make sense, immersion is broken.
To me the desire for replayability seems to come mostly from players. Designers, though they might claim that a game has it, don't really have any incentive to provide replayability unless their game has a subscription or microtransactions. On the other hand, if a game is fun to play through ten times, it can allow them to make a 60 hour game out of 6 hours of gameplay, which might justify a higher price on the game. If my choices in the game result in a branching path, personally, it often just makes me angry that I have to replay the first part of the game that's the same. Replaying the story to get different results also cheapens the original experience to me - the story feels less authentic. If we're talking about choice and consequence, then I have to say that once I've personally rewound it and negated the consequences of my own choices, they pretty much lose all their meaning to me.
I disagree with the premise that simulation and replayability are the two main reasons to add choice and consequence to your games, though. I think both of them are helpful things to have in your game, maybe, depending on the game, but they're not why I care about choice and consequence as a player, or why I try to put it choice and consequence my own games.
A third possible goal of choice and consequence in games, and to me the most important one, is player control. Giving the player the ability to customize their experience is an extremely powerful tool that gives them good memories of the game. Strategically focused RPGs might give players an incredible amount of control to customize the combat portion of the game, while open-world games instead focus on giving the player directional control. Both of these are important - but when your game focuses on a character-driven story, giving the player story control is often important also. It can create a strange disconnect when one aspect of the game is extremely directed and linear while another aspect is full of choices that change the way the game plays out in noticable ways.
You don't have to play Mass Effect or Dragon Age: Origins twice to experience the feeling of control over the world that the game gives you, nor to enjoy it. And while some of the results of your choices help lend credibility to the world, that's not why the choices are there. Replayability and simulation aren't the goal. The goal is to give the player a feeling of power, of control. That the player is the one holding the controller. A feeling that he or she is co-authoring the story. When done right, the events that happen as consequences of the player's choices, good or bad, have that much more impact as a result of the fact that you know they're your own doing.
Do you agree with me? Which of the above reasons is your driving goal for adding choice and consequences to your games - or are you driven by something else entirely? Do you see one or all of the above goals as actually negative?
The video, in which MrBtongue mostly rants for ten minutes about how good Fallout 1 is.
The idea in this video is that simulation and replayability are the two main reasons to focus on choice and consequence in a game, or at least the main ones. These certainly seem to be things that both reviewers and developers love to bring up as selling points.
It's easy to understand why he likes the idea of simulating a world. Immersion is a powerful tool, and drawing the player into a consistent and realistic world can create a powerful level of connection to the game. It's easy to become lost in a game when you really believe in it, and hard to do so when something uncanny breaks your immersion. Additionally, the idea that art imitates life has been around for millenia - statues and paintings that perfectly depict things from the real world with exquisite attention to detail and realism are considered to be excellent works of art. And these arguments for realism don't just apply to graphics; they apply equally to the story, and especially to the way the player interacts with the world to shape that story. If cause and effect don't make sense, immersion is broken.
To me the desire for replayability seems to come mostly from players. Designers, though they might claim that a game has it, don't really have any incentive to provide replayability unless their game has a subscription or microtransactions. On the other hand, if a game is fun to play through ten times, it can allow them to make a 60 hour game out of 6 hours of gameplay, which might justify a higher price on the game. If my choices in the game result in a branching path, personally, it often just makes me angry that I have to replay the first part of the game that's the same. Replaying the story to get different results also cheapens the original experience to me - the story feels less authentic. If we're talking about choice and consequence, then I have to say that once I've personally rewound it and negated the consequences of my own choices, they pretty much lose all their meaning to me.
I disagree with the premise that simulation and replayability are the two main reasons to add choice and consequence to your games, though. I think both of them are helpful things to have in your game, maybe, depending on the game, but they're not why I care about choice and consequence as a player, or why I try to put it choice and consequence my own games.
A third possible goal of choice and consequence in games, and to me the most important one, is player control. Giving the player the ability to customize their experience is an extremely powerful tool that gives them good memories of the game. Strategically focused RPGs might give players an incredible amount of control to customize the combat portion of the game, while open-world games instead focus on giving the player directional control. Both of these are important - but when your game focuses on a character-driven story, giving the player story control is often important also. It can create a strange disconnect when one aspect of the game is extremely directed and linear while another aspect is full of choices that change the way the game plays out in noticable ways.
You don't have to play Mass Effect or Dragon Age: Origins twice to experience the feeling of control over the world that the game gives you, nor to enjoy it. And while some of the results of your choices help lend credibility to the world, that's not why the choices are there. Replayability and simulation aren't the goal. The goal is to give the player a feeling of power, of control. That the player is the one holding the controller. A feeling that he or she is co-authoring the story. When done right, the events that happen as consequences of the player's choices, good or bad, have that much more impact as a result of the fact that you know they're your own doing.
Do you agree with me? Which of the above reasons is your driving goal for adding choice and consequences to your games - or are you driven by something else entirely? Do you see one or all of the above goals as actually negative?
I found his revised diagram of the branching paths very interesting: Its a video game, so a single choice doesn't need two distinct outcomes. Its just simply either the default story path, and whatever your choices change about it, that are the consequences of any action.
I suppose that I agree with the simulation aspect of choices and that they are the desired effect you want to create with them. But its also one that doesn't concern me much, and I have mixed feelings about what constitutes "good" choices.
The most important choices you can allow the player to make in a game are not dialogue options. Rather, branching paths in of themselves. Options you give players that diversify how they choose to play it. And I'm not talking about story paths. I mean simple things like allowing them to explore an optional cave. Or giving them an optional hard mode. Or allowing them the opportunity to craft/find optional rare items. Or recruit optional party members, optional endings. The list goes on.
I think it could be easy to lose sight of that with the video's focus on story choices alone: That implies the player's affectations are focused on changing only the story, the plot of the game. But that's something that you passively experience, and it doesn't affect you as a player. Maybe as an observer, only. The plot is going to be the plot, and despite how many choices the designers give you to play it, its still going to be the plot and it won't change that much. I'd even argue that an extremely malleable plot works to a story-driven game's ultimate detriment.
As far as replay value is concerned, I think trying to pin that factor of a game on a specific cause like branching paths and multiple outcomes is doing the topic a disservice: Personally I find replay value to be 1) A magical leprechaun that you have to strike gold with by throwing together the correct obtuse elements in a game, because whatever induces it in folks is very subjective. And 2) My criterion for a 5-star game. But that can be its own topic.
I suppose that I agree with the simulation aspect of choices and that they are the desired effect you want to create with them. But its also one that doesn't concern me much, and I have mixed feelings about what constitutes "good" choices.
The most important choices you can allow the player to make in a game are not dialogue options. Rather, branching paths in of themselves. Options you give players that diversify how they choose to play it. And I'm not talking about story paths. I mean simple things like allowing them to explore an optional cave. Or giving them an optional hard mode. Or allowing them the opportunity to craft/find optional rare items. Or recruit optional party members, optional endings. The list goes on.
I think it could be easy to lose sight of that with the video's focus on story choices alone: That implies the player's affectations are focused on changing only the story, the plot of the game. But that's something that you passively experience, and it doesn't affect you as a player. Maybe as an observer, only. The plot is going to be the plot, and despite how many choices the designers give you to play it, its still going to be the plot and it won't change that much. I'd even argue that an extremely malleable plot works to a story-driven game's ultimate detriment.
As far as replay value is concerned, I think trying to pin that factor of a game on a specific cause like branching paths and multiple outcomes is doing the topic a disservice: Personally I find replay value to be 1) A magical leprechaun that you have to strike gold with by throwing together the correct obtuse elements in a game, because whatever induces it in folks is very subjective. And 2) My criterion for a 5-star game. But that can be its own topic.
Avee
5794
I have to disagree about a malleable plot being passively experienced and ultimately detrimental to the whole...
Giving this a quick thought I'd have to mention Catherine as an example of how player control can provide an intimate, personal and satisfying gaming experience. It would be a huge disservice to the game to spoil any part of the plot so I'll only talk about one feature:
Every decision you make in the game (there are a lot) corresponds to either concepts of Order ("follow the herd") or Chaos ("stray from the path") and moves you closer to either pole, altering some outcomes and consequences throughout the game. Although Order and Chaos are presented as opposites, none are said to be inherently good or bad and where you stand on the scale partially determines the ending you'll get.
Whether you gravitate towards Order or Chaos you still have access to two very satisfying, "good" although radically different endings.
In truth, the good endings are available if you fully assume your position. The bad, unsatisfying twists may happen when you are hesitant and fluctuate between the two poles. You even have access to a third option where freedom and following your wildest dream is more important to you then a successful romantic relationship.
You can therefore guide Vincent towards a path that is tailor-made for you, the player, and that reflects your own opinions and values on the themes and moral issues presented. The game actually made me reflect on those themes, on my own positions and feelings.
Giving this a quick thought I'd have to mention Catherine as an example of how player control can provide an intimate, personal and satisfying gaming experience. It would be a huge disservice to the game to spoil any part of the plot so I'll only talk about one feature:
Every decision you make in the game (there are a lot) corresponds to either concepts of Order ("follow the herd") or Chaos ("stray from the path") and moves you closer to either pole, altering some outcomes and consequences throughout the game. Although Order and Chaos are presented as opposites, none are said to be inherently good or bad and where you stand on the scale partially determines the ending you'll get.
Whether you gravitate towards Order or Chaos you still have access to two very satisfying, "good" although radically different endings.
In truth, the good endings are available if you fully assume your position. The bad, unsatisfying twists may happen when you are hesitant and fluctuate between the two poles. You even have access to a third option where freedom and following your wildest dream is more important to you then a successful romantic relationship.
You can therefore guide Vincent towards a path that is tailor-made for you, the player, and that reflects your own opinions and values on the themes and moral issues presented. The game actually made me reflect on those themes, on my own positions and feelings.
author=Avee
I have to disagree about a malleable plot being passively experienced and ultimately detrimental to the whole...
Were you disagreeing with Locke here, or the video? Because I think Locke agrees with you on that point, that stories with choices can be meaningful.
~~~
I agree with you, LockeZ, especially with your counter-argument that replaying a choice-driven story can cheapen the past choices that you made. In life, you don't experience any path but the one you've chosen, but it's still good having a choice, simply because you have the freedom to do what you want. Some people also have the ideology that if they lived their life over again they wouldn't change a thing, just because that's the life they lived and they wouldn't want to live it any other way. It'd be weird, like you said.
author=Isrieri
The most important choices you can allow the player to make in a game are not dialogue options. Rather, branching paths in of themselves.
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you right here, but often, in games, lots of dialogue options are required to mask which choices are important and which aren't. One of the reasons why I think Walking Dead: The Game is so awesome is because you were given so many dialogue choices throughout the game that often you didn't know which ones mattered and which ones didn't and you had guess. It didn't matter that there were only a few choices in the game that actually "mattered" to the relationships around you, but it was the fact that you didn't know when you were going to offend Kenny or piss off some other muffin in a top hat with what you said or did.
Avee
5794
author=CashmereCat
Were you disagreeing with Locke here, or the video? Because I think Locke agrees with you on that point, that stories with choices can be meaningful.
Agreeing with LockeZ, disagreeing with one of Isrieri's points.
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
I prefer games with linear storylines. I don't care about "co-authoring" the plot or anything like that... which is why I was bemused at the commotion and weird entitled fan-rage that sprang from the original ending of Mass Effect 3. I didn't play any game in that series, but I have played Fallout 3 and New Vegas so I have somewhat of an idea of the typical differences between western and eastern rpgs, and yeah I definitely just prefer the linearity implemented in ps1 era Final Fantasy, for instance.
I don't know... it just seems kind of lame to feel like you should be able to make serious choices in a game that is ultimately all written by someone else anyway. You don't actually have "control", because you are still playing within the boundaries set by the game devs.
There's an eroge game called Yu-No where as I understand it, you don't have to replay the start of the game to see every branching storyline, and this was actually one of the key ideas of its development. In the game the player has an item that allows them to travel to different points in parallel timelines, something like that. I thought that was a pretty cool idea. A similar structure is evident in FF XIII-2, and although I liked the canon ending I lost interest quickly with those gag non-standard endings littered throughout the timeline.
I just remembered a game that had some pretty awful design decisions: Folklore. You had control over two characters in separate scenarios, but had to repeat the same frustrating levels and bosses with both characters, which makes pretty much zero sense.
... Lastly, I like the way Bioshock dealt with multiple endings/lack thereof. The last game especially... I like that it subverted my expectations and that the multiple choice thing became a kind of meta theme of the series as a whole... hmmm if that makes any sense at all.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
I don't know... it just seems kind of lame to feel like you should be able to make serious choices in a game that is ultimately all written by someone else anyway. You don't actually have "control", because you are still playing within the boundaries set by the game devs.
There's an eroge game called Yu-No where as I understand it, you don't have to replay the start of the game to see every branching storyline, and this was actually one of the key ideas of its development. In the game the player has an item that allows them to travel to different points in parallel timelines, something like that. I thought that was a pretty cool idea. A similar structure is evident in FF XIII-2, and although I liked the canon ending I lost interest quickly with those gag non-standard endings littered throughout the timeline.
I just remembered a game that had some pretty awful design decisions: Folklore. You had control over two characters in separate scenarios, but had to repeat the same frustrating levels and bosses with both characters, which makes pretty much zero sense.
... Lastly, I like the way Bioshock dealt with multiple endings/lack thereof. The last game especially... I like that it subverted my expectations and that the multiple choice thing became a kind of meta theme of the series as a whole... hmmm if that makes any sense at all.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
author=suzy_cheesedreams
I don't know... it just seems kind of lame to feel like you should be able to make serious choices in a game that is ultimately all written by someone else anyway. You don't actually have "control", because you are still playing within the boundaries set by the game devs.
Ooh, that reminds me, I recommend that people play The Stanley Parable. It's a fantastic criticism of the illusion of choice in today's games. I don't hate choices in games, and I'd encourage suzy to play Mass Effect before judging it - it's really quite different from Fallout 3 in terms of structure - but The Stanley Parable is just absolutely hilarious yet somehow disturbing at the same time. Brilliant game.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Choice is interesting, but I find it a little frustrating that I'm offered a limited set of dialog choices and the like. It can be handled well, but in cases where I'm supposed to be making up a character, having the illusion of determination is annoying, because the option I'd have picked isn't there. (Persona 4 springs to mind; how I longed for a "Shut up, Yusuke, you dick!" option!)
(It can get especially bad with false choices where there's obvious better options.)
Having simple changes from gameplay choices can be nice, though, like getting different endings depending on whether the player found certain items or succeeded at certain tasks. (Or even just minor things that don't strongly affect the plot, such as aesthetic changes or the development of NPCs.)
(It can get especially bad with false choices where there's obvious better options.)
Having simple changes from gameplay choices can be nice, though, like getting different endings depending on whether the player found certain items or succeeded at certain tasks. (Or even just minor things that don't strongly affect the plot, such as aesthetic changes or the development of NPCs.)
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
So to you, Sooz, the reason to have choices and consequences in a game is primarily to let the player roleplay?
author=Sooz]
Choice is interesting, but I find it a little frustrating that I'm offered a limited set of dialog choices and the like. It can be handled well, but in cases where I'm supposed to be making up a character, having the illusion of determination is annoying, because the option I'd have picked isn't there. (Persona 4 springs to mind; how I longed for a "Shut up, Yusuke, you dick!" option!)
Well practically games can't have every single choice we want to, sadly. But I think that catering for a variety of different types of player reactions is good. Are you saying that there's not good enough of a range of ways that a player can react, so it feels like you can't really make your character your own?
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
I don't hate choice games either - I just prefer following a linear story (as long as it's well written, obviously). I think it's a result of growing up with Final Fantasy games and little else in the way of rpgs.
I mean, this can be done badly - FF XIII springs to mind. It was very bare, was pretty short, and worst of all - the characters were awwwwwful (except for Fang!). I did like the setting and story, though, and I really love the sequel... however all that went down the toilet with the advent of Lightning Returns. That game is a turd.
But anyway, touché CashmereCat. I should just go play Mass Effect 3 instead of dissing it on the internet.
I mean, this can be done badly - FF XIII springs to mind. It was very bare, was pretty short, and worst of all - the characters were awwwwwful (except for Fang!). I did like the setting and story, though, and I really love the sequel... however all that went down the toilet with the advent of Lightning Returns. That game is a turd.
But anyway, touché CashmereCat. I should just go play Mass Effect 3 instead of dissing it on the internet.
Crystalgate
694
author=CashmereCat
Well practically games can't have every single choice we want to, sadly. But I think that catering for a variety of different types of player reactions is good. Are you saying that there's not good enough of a range of ways that a player can react, so it feels like you can't really make your character your own?
In the case of Persona 4, it's not a case of not having every single choice we want to. "Shut up Yosuke" is the most commonly desired choice and there's no way the writers couldn't have known that the players would want to say that. They simple didn't want to give the players that choice because that would prevent some (often not so) funny scenes from occurring. A common example is that the game decides to be funny at the expense of the main character and it simple won't allow the player to steer the main character out of that situation.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=LockeZ
So to you, Sooz, the reason to have choices and consequences in a game is primarily to let the player roleplay?
I think it's more that there's a variety of choice types, and I prefer some to others? Like, the dialog choice option tends to pop up in "roleplay" contexts, so I feel like it should be more tailored to giving a larger variety of options. I definitely understand why this is kind of a pipe dream, but it seems weird nonetheless to offer a rather high level of choice and customization and then suddenly restrict it.
author=CashmereCat
Are you saying that there's not good enough of a range of ways that a player can react, so it feels like you can't really make your character your own?
To an extent, yeah. A lot of it is rebelling against a creator's ideology, I suppose; continuing with the P4 example, it was really obvious that the creators intended for Yosuke to be the Goofy Best Friend character, which wouldn't be a huge issue (other than him being a big dumb douche) in a game where the social events were more linear. But when a core mechanic is to choose social behavior and which relationships one wants to pursue (and when this character is sometimes explicitly being a dick to characters you have the option of befriending) it's offputting not to have the option of saying, "No dude, seriously, cut that out, nobody wants to hear your shit."
I guess a lot of it is that I have a strong background in freeform and tabletop RP, and I'm even involved in running a large multiplayer TTRPG system that's experimenting with allowing player actions to influence the storyline, so I'm really used to the HUGE impacts that player choice can have on things. Since it's currently impossible to set up a video game (other than maybe in MMORPG form) to allow real player agency in that respect, it's a lot like seeing a crap imitation.
In a sense, I feel like game writers are just kind of fooling themselves with the idea that they're offering any real customization in these options, because they can't possibly plan for every playstyle and philosophy. It seems less of an issue when the choices are explicitly limited by a set personality, since then at least nobody is pretending that there's customization.
Again, this is mainly just about choices in the form of dialog boxes. I'm much more happy with choices within actual gameplay- things like "Which path will I take?" or "Should I use this item now, or save it?" That's where real player agency lies, not in the choose-your-own-adventure dialog trees.
Shinan
4314
I like the simulation aspect of things. I remember and old article about RPGs (tabletop rpgs), from waybackwhen when the word wasn't as common as it is today and it described the games as "simulation games". So to me the choice and consequence is the very foundation of the definition of an RPG.
And yes a lot of it has to do with the ability to roleplay out the game that you maybe might want. I used to be more on the side of "this linear game is so full of shit" but nowadays, especially after playing The Walking Dead and similar I can appreciate games where your choices don't change the story but rather changes personal relationships with different characters.
I remember when I played Deus Ex for the first time and was amazed at all the paths I didn't take but seemed available. And obviously it was all smoke and mirrors I found out on a second playthrough. But that made me realize that the smoke and mirrors is the important part. That there isn't really replayability in the best games with choices and consequences. Instead there is the illusion of choice. And the path changes subtly but not massively.
I guess it is all about control. Tailoring the stories to the player in a way. It is always very satisfying when a choice pays off later. And it is the small things too. RPGs are generally big adventures and when someone remarks late in the game: "Remember that? That was pretty sweet." I feel like it all mattered.
Unlike certain games where upon backtracking a bit into an are you've already visited all the people are still spouting the same oneliners about how you have to defeat the evil in the mountains you defeated ages ago.
Sometimes there's also the confusion that "open world" games are choice and consequence and this I sort of hate. Open world games often have a distinct LACk of consequence to any action. Become the king of the thieves? Sure thing. Become the head of the city guards? Sure thing. Everything at once and at all times. You can choose if you do something or in which order you do them but your choices never have any consequences.
I know some people are annoyed with paths getting cut off. But that is all part of the magic of the simulation. One interesting bit I saw about the storytelling in Starcraft 2 was where that game had branching paths but what actually happened changed because of your choices. We often see the simulation as "objective", the world stays the same and the player reacts to it. But what if when you decided to not trust a guy the world changed so that he was always untrustworthy and when you decided you could trust him he was trustworthy. Or the other way around?
I find it an interesting thought. Where player choice not only dictates what happens next but dictates what happened before.
And yes a lot of it has to do with the ability to roleplay out the game that you maybe might want. I used to be more on the side of "this linear game is so full of shit" but nowadays, especially after playing The Walking Dead and similar I can appreciate games where your choices don't change the story but rather changes personal relationships with different characters.
I remember when I played Deus Ex for the first time and was amazed at all the paths I didn't take but seemed available. And obviously it was all smoke and mirrors I found out on a second playthrough. But that made me realize that the smoke and mirrors is the important part. That there isn't really replayability in the best games with choices and consequences. Instead there is the illusion of choice. And the path changes subtly but not massively.
I guess it is all about control. Tailoring the stories to the player in a way. It is always very satisfying when a choice pays off later. And it is the small things too. RPGs are generally big adventures and when someone remarks late in the game: "Remember that? That was pretty sweet." I feel like it all mattered.
Unlike certain games where upon backtracking a bit into an are you've already visited all the people are still spouting the same oneliners about how you have to defeat the evil in the mountains you defeated ages ago.
Sometimes there's also the confusion that "open world" games are choice and consequence and this I sort of hate. Open world games often have a distinct LACk of consequence to any action. Become the king of the thieves? Sure thing. Become the head of the city guards? Sure thing. Everything at once and at all times. You can choose if you do something or in which order you do them but your choices never have any consequences.
I know some people are annoyed with paths getting cut off. But that is all part of the magic of the simulation. One interesting bit I saw about the storytelling in Starcraft 2 was where that game had branching paths but what actually happened changed because of your choices. We often see the simulation as "objective", the world stays the same and the player reacts to it. But what if when you decided to not trust a guy the world changed so that he was always untrustworthy and when you decided you could trust him he was trustworthy. Or the other way around?
I find it an interesting thought. Where player choice not only dictates what happens next but dictates what happened before.
This is a very interesting topic!I believe awarding the player with the power to choose can be a very important aspect. However, absolutely not with dialogue boxes. I agree with all the points made by @Sooz, it's horrifyingly offputting.
But... Choices can be subtle! You can visit the right room in the right time, wake up a security guard because of your noise and have that have a consequence in a future aspect of the plot! The player doesn't necessarily have to notice, but knowing that your actions play a part in defining the outcome of the story is definitely important. (to some games. It's not by any means 'pivotal' to any game. Linear games are perfectly OK.)
Another cool example that I just remembered was SaGa Frontier. You could choose the player characters in the very first screen, and you could pretty make up the order of the events you'd do all the way to the final boss... Of the scenario. Because every character scenario had its own final boss. But I don't remember if there were actual game-branching choices! However, the choice of ordering your actions and picking characters in a game like that made for a very interesting scenario, especially because characters play different roles in different stories.
But anyway, in my opinion it's all about implementation. And about not using dialogue boxes for the love of god please i beg you
But... Choices can be subtle! You can visit the right room in the right time, wake up a security guard because of your noise and have that have a consequence in a future aspect of the plot! The player doesn't necessarily have to notice, but knowing that your actions play a part in defining the outcome of the story is definitely important. (to some games. It's not by any means 'pivotal' to any game. Linear games are perfectly OK.)
Another cool example that I just remembered was SaGa Frontier. You could choose the player characters in the very first screen, and you could pretty make up the order of the events you'd do all the way to the final boss... Of the scenario. Because every character scenario had its own final boss. But I don't remember if there were actual game-branching choices! However, the choice of ordering your actions and picking characters in a game like that made for a very interesting scenario, especially because characters play different roles in different stories.
But anyway, in my opinion it's all about implementation. And about not using dialogue boxes for the love of god please i beg you
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=ShinanThis reminded me of how much I hate when making a choice has the consequence of actually preventing me from doing something in the game. It bothers me a lot when I can't actually complete a game.
I remember when I played Deus Ex for the first time and was amazed at all the paths I didn't take but seemed available.
If I get permanently locked out of actual content, like a sidequest or a party member or something, I'll almost certainly quit playing forever. Because what's the point in continuing if I can never finish the game now? Not being able to join the city guard (even if it's because I joined the thieves guild) is almost indistinguishable from stamping "YOU LOSE" in big letters in the middle of the screen, at least to me. A game isn't "won" if you quit with parts of it unbeaten, after all.
This doesn't really apply to missing rewards. Just to missing... objectives, I guess. Doing something and getting no reward isn't anywhere near as bad as not being able to do it at all.
So yeah, I definitely like choice and consequence, but if the consequence is that I lose access to part of the game, you might as well just make it cause a game over instead. IMO, you should always make sure that, if a player is persistent, they can somehow play the parts of the game they missed out on. It doesn't have to be easy to do - it might require a lot of grind to undo your previous choices, or perhaps unlocking all paths can be an easter egg after beating the final boss.
author=JosephSeraphYeah, SaGa Frontier had the magic specializations. There were four pairs of magic schools, and you could only choose one magic school from each pair. You could also only recruit 12 characters, so you had to choose which ones to get. (Also a couple minor things like trading a weapon for a character.)
Another cool example that I just remembered was SaGa Frontier. But I don't remember if there were actual game-branching choices!
SaGa Frontier succeeds at my above requirement (mostly) because the real way to play it is to play through each character's story one by one, not to just pick one character to play and then never try the others. The whole game is pretty different for each of them after all (except Lute, fuck that guy). By the end of playing through the seven stories, you've had the ability to do everything and recruit everyone.
Shinan
4314
If I get permanently locked out of actual content, like a sidequest or a party member or something, I'll almost certainly quit playing forever. Because what's the point in continuing if I can never finish the game now? Not being able to join the city guard (even if it's because I joined the thieves guild) is almost indistinguishable from stamping "YOU LOSE" in big letters in the middle of the screen, at least to me. A game isn't "won" if you quit with parts of it unbeaten, after all.
I am on the completely opposite side of this. Sure I often get angsty about which side to pick in a game but if I, in the end, can pick both sides anyway the choice is completely meaningless AND also completely without consequence.
I recently played Wasteland 2 and it has, very early on, (SPOILERS probably) two objectives that show up simultaneously. You go to one and as you do that one you hear the death throes of the other. It is harrowing and upsetting when you then go to the other and see what happened there.
How meaningless wouldn't it be to be able to save both places?
For me it is an instant turnoff if I make a choice and then I can do the opposite anyway. THAT is my instant game over and ragequit-"fuck this game and its shitty writers/worldbuilding".
I am somewhere in the middle of Shinan and LockeZ' opinions regarding this. I want to be able to do stuff. And a lot of stuff at that, without having to newg+. I want to be able to get all ultimate endgame stuff. All endgame weapons, quests, etc.
But I also want the choices to be meaningful, and I like the restrictions.
As such, I think it's about what you make optional. If you make it so that it's impossible to get everyone's ultimate powerup in the same playthrough I'm gonna get pissed. But not so much if the stuff is story-related (which makes way more sense for one option to eclipse the other) or cool, but otherwise not important features... Like a cool spell that turns your team into powerful grappler frogs or something like that. What I mean is: There are things I'm fine with removing, but don't remove the endgame stuff please. In case you do so, make alternate variations. Maybe if your character's being a good person their ultimate weapon is light-associated and needs sidequest A to achieve... And maybe they've been being BAD, resulting in a dark-associated weapon in sidequest B! I don't feel like I'm losing anything, I just feel that I'm playing the character the way I like :D
But I also want the choices to be meaningful, and I like the restrictions.
As such, I think it's about what you make optional. If you make it so that it's impossible to get everyone's ultimate powerup in the same playthrough I'm gonna get pissed. But not so much if the stuff is story-related (which makes way more sense for one option to eclipse the other) or cool, but otherwise not important features... Like a cool spell that turns your team into powerful grappler frogs or something like that. What I mean is: There are things I'm fine with removing, but don't remove the endgame stuff please. In case you do so, make alternate variations. Maybe if your character's being a good person their ultimate weapon is light-associated and needs sidequest A to achieve... And maybe they've been being BAD, resulting in a dark-associated weapon in sidequest B! I don't feel like I'm losing anything, I just feel that I'm playing the character the way I like :D
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
You can't please everyone, that's for sure!
The Wasteland 2 example is something that would really bother me. The game is telling you pretty explicitly that you made the wrong choice and lost the game as a result. But you lose both ways! The game is in an unwinnable state. I can't accept that. I'm James Tiberius Kirk over here. I play video games because I want to beat them.
I'm sure there's a way they could have done this particular choice that would satisfy both of us, though. Without playing the game I don't know enough to tell you what that way is, but I'm sure it exists. Here's one random suggestion which may or may not work:
Option 1) Player goes after Harvey Dent. Rachel is killed by the Joker.
Option 2) Player goes after Rachel. Harvey Dent is mutilated by a fire.
Option 3) Player desperately recruits help. You get to play through both scenarios as two different characters. However, at the end of the second scenario, the second recruited character ultimately fails, and Harvey Dent is still mutilated by the fire. This allows the player to experience and complete the whole game, without changing the important plot idea of being unable to save someone.
Of course, if other things later in the game become available/unavailable as a result of this choice as well, this doesn't solve that. But you can always keep coming up with more solutions. Perhaps the aftermath has a different story depending on who you saved, but the enemies and bosses have suspiciously identical abilities and terrain? Whatever. It's always a solvable problem.
The Wasteland 2 example is something that would really bother me. The game is telling you pretty explicitly that you made the wrong choice and lost the game as a result. But you lose both ways! The game is in an unwinnable state. I can't accept that. I'm James Tiberius Kirk over here. I play video games because I want to beat them.
I'm sure there's a way they could have done this particular choice that would satisfy both of us, though. Without playing the game I don't know enough to tell you what that way is, but I'm sure it exists. Here's one random suggestion which may or may not work:
Option 1) Player goes after Harvey Dent. Rachel is killed by the Joker.
Option 2) Player goes after Rachel. Harvey Dent is mutilated by a fire.
Option 3) Player desperately recruits help. You get to play through both scenarios as two different characters. However, at the end of the second scenario, the second recruited character ultimately fails, and Harvey Dent is still mutilated by the fire. This allows the player to experience and complete the whole game, without changing the important plot idea of being unable to save someone.
Of course, if other things later in the game become available/unavailable as a result of this choice as well, this doesn't solve that. But you can always keep coming up with more solutions. Perhaps the aftermath has a different story depending on who you saved, but the enemies and bosses have suspiciously identical abilities and terrain? Whatever. It's always a solvable problem.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=LockeZ
Option 1) Player goes after Harvey Dent. Rachel is killed by the Joker.
Option 2) Player goes after Rachel. Harvey Dent is mutilated by a fire.
Option 3) Player desperately recruits help. You get to play through both scenarios as two different characters. However, at the end of the second scenario, the second recruited character ultimately fails, and Harvey Dent is still mutilated by the fire. This allows the player to experience and complete the whole game, without changing the important plot idea of being unable to save someone.
I really like this solution.
