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
Shinan
4314
Shinan
View playlists
CloseDoes Option 3) also include "Option 4) 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 Rachel is still killed by the Joker."
If the fourth choice does not exist then there is no choice. And if the fourth choice does exist there is really no difference between the version with 1&2 and the one with 3&4.
From a game making perspective I know that choices nearly always lead to the same results. No matter which faction I picked In Vampire: Bloodlines the last couple of missions would always be the same. Just the reasons for being there were different.
But using the same assets with a robust enough system is easy enough so that the game can be both designed so that if you pick one side you defend a power plant and if you pick the other you are assaulting it. Compeltely different gameplay experiences using the same levels created.
In Wasteland 2 there's also the explicit intention to set the stage and mood through the early choice. There is a reason this mission is the second one (after the "tutorial mission"). It sets certain expectations so that if a similar situation arises later it doesn't come out of nowhere.
If the fourth choice does not exist then there is no choice. And if the fourth choice does exist there is really no difference between the version with 1&2 and the one with 3&4.
From a game making perspective I know that choices nearly always lead to the same results. No matter which faction I picked In Vampire: Bloodlines the last couple of missions would always be the same. Just the reasons for being there were different.
But using the same assets with a robust enough system is easy enough so that the game can be both designed so that if you pick one side you defend a power plant and if you pick the other you are assaulting it. Compeltely different gameplay experiences using the same levels created.
In Wasteland 2 there's also the explicit intention to set the stage and mood through the early choice. There is a reason this mission is the second one (after the "tutorial mission"). It sets certain expectations so that if a similar situation arises later it doesn't come out of nowhere.
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
Yeah, option 4 would need to exist also I suppose, for the people who care about the story difference of who gets saved. To me personally it serves exactly the same purpose as option 3 so it's kinda redundant. You can choose to play one level, play the other level, or (through cleverness or by paying some price) you can find a way to play both. Those are the choices that I care about.
The story is, like, whatever. You can't "win" or "lose" a story, you can only observe it, so it doesn't bother me if parts of it are left out for dramatic reasons. Stories by their nature also are one-way roads, unlike gameplay, so trading one cut scene for another doesn't feel like arbitrarily being locked out of part of the experience. It feels like it makes more sense to lose access to a plot event like that, in fact, and would actually cheapen the experience to go back and undo the story. But you can always find some excuse to add in the missed gameplay.
Worst-case scenario it can be done "outside the game." Like a new third option on the title screen below "New Game" and "Load Game" that says "EX Game."
I'm rambling and making no sense! I think I changed my stance in this thread more times than I made posts.
The story is, like, whatever. You can't "win" or "lose" a story, you can only observe it, so it doesn't bother me if parts of it are left out for dramatic reasons. Stories by their nature also are one-way roads, unlike gameplay, so trading one cut scene for another doesn't feel like arbitrarily being locked out of part of the experience. It feels like it makes more sense to lose access to a plot event like that, in fact, and would actually cheapen the experience to go back and undo the story. But you can always find some excuse to add in the missed gameplay.
Worst-case scenario it can be done "outside the game." Like a new third option on the title screen below "New Game" and "Load Game" that says "EX Game."
I'm rambling and making no sense! I think I changed my stance in this thread more times than I made posts.
Shinan
4314
On the other hand when it comes to missed gameplay does it really matter if you missed Dungeon #36 that is more or less the same as Dungeons #1-#20. Sometimes they are even the same stock locations. Like in Mass Effect 1 where every single side-mission base was the exact same one just with boxes in different places.
Gameplay-wise agmes usually have a limited toolset and rarely do I think that a choice outright locks you out of a gameplay feature. You'll still be killing mooks with abilities, does it really matter exactly where you are killing these mooks? and/or if they are one colour rather than the other?
Okay I can see scenarios where you siding with one faction means you never fight troops from that faction (who might have tanks of a specific kind that you won't find elsewhere).
And if you are locked out of assaulting one base it's nearly always certain that you will be able to assault another at some other point.
Even the Wasteland 2 example lets you go to the "lost" place and mop up whatever is left. So even though the location is on fire and not what it might have been had you been there on time. You still get to kill mooks and loot a chest or two in the location.
EDIT: I still have some thoughts about meaningful locking out of gameplay aspects. But I looked at the clock and I have to close up shop and get home from work :)
Gameplay-wise agmes usually have a limited toolset and rarely do I think that a choice outright locks you out of a gameplay feature. You'll still be killing mooks with abilities, does it really matter exactly where you are killing these mooks? and/or if they are one colour rather than the other?
Okay I can see scenarios where you siding with one faction means you never fight troops from that faction (who might have tanks of a specific kind that you won't find elsewhere).
And if you are locked out of assaulting one base it's nearly always certain that you will be able to assault another at some other point.
Even the Wasteland 2 example lets you go to the "lost" place and mop up whatever is left. So even though the location is on fire and not what it might have been had you been there on time. You still get to kill mooks and loot a chest or two in the location.
EDIT: I still have some thoughts about meaningful locking out of gameplay aspects. But I looked at the clock and I have to close up shop and get home from work :)
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Shinan
On the other hand when it comes to missed gameplay does it really matter if you missed Dungeon #36 that is more or less the same as Dungeons #1-#20.
For some of us, absolutely. -_^
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=LockeZ
Worst-case scenario it can be done "outside the game." Like a new third option on the title screen below "New Game" and "Load Game" that says "EX Game."
But there is a third option; it's called "Quit Game". Maybe this game just isn't for you?
