• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Do you enjoy choice in game plots?

ctkayedisto said:
I really want to play the Witcher series after hearing about it, but the second game imports choices from the first and the first isn't near as good, no? I'd feel lame starting on the second if I could tailor the choices in the first.
Click to expand...

The first one is fine. It just has a weird combat system, shitty graphics for a 2007 game, and runs like a pig on most anything. Story-wise it's still a great game.

Also, the choices that carry over aren't THAT important. There's a bitchin' end-of=game armor from TW1 that you can carry into TW2 but that's mostly it. It's really just a bunch of small things here and there.
 
TLoU showed me that a tightly knit linear narrative is more fun than any "choice" game I've played.
I do enjoy stuff like Mass Effect, but I've yet to see a branching story that's as good as TLoU's.
 
Most of the time it isn't done very well. Last generation gave us two big trends that everyone wanted to cash in on. GTA-like gameplay, and "Be Good or Be Evil. You Decide!" Both were usually done poorly. I just feel like the narrative of a story suffers when they attempt to do this. It would take a lot of work to actually have all those branches of choice, and then different character reactions and relationships based off that. So usually we get a weaker story to compensate for the decision of the player, but then things just end the same either way you go with few exceptions. It's not a good trade-off, and doesn't make me feel more immersed in the game world.
 
It depends. I don't like it when the choices are comically black and white as in Bioware games. I do enjoy the major plot choice in The Witcher 2, however. Moral ambiguity is so much more interesting than good vs. evil.
 
Very few games do choices well (look at Witcher series and yeah, Alpha Protocol).

Others either just change the dialog (lol i'm kewl edgy bastard) and other just feels like a rehash of the "good" choice.

At some point you'd just say to yourself "if they didn't split it and give it choices, they could've made the plot more focused".
 
Noogy said:
Personally I don't care for them. I want to see all the content in a game, and really don't have time for multiple playthroughs.
Click to expand...
I do enjoy them depending on the game. However, I agree with you on multiple playthroughs.

I'm a one and done kinda guy unless the game is like Witcher 2 and provides a choice that changes the game so drastically.
 
DangerStepp said:
I do enjoy them depending on the game. However, I agree with you on multiple playthroughs.

I'm a one and done kinda guy unless the game is like Witcher 2 and provides a choice that changes the game so drastically.
Click to expand...

For instance, Act 2 is totally different depending on your choices in Act 1.
 
Choice is good. It complicates the game for the devs and diverts resources to parts of the game a player may never see, it adds considerable strain to the already overtaxed writers, ... but I nonetheless like being able to, well, play a game.

A linear story that is told to me as passive content consumer can be fun too, but I strongly favor the interaction and pretense of choice. That way, I have "influenced" the story, meaning this is "my" adventure and not somebody else's. There's a sense of accomplishment from being actively involved like that. Provided it is done well, mind you. It must be real choice, with real consequences.

Not the standard Bioware "be Satan or be a Saint" filler, more like the Bioware "Bomb's gonna blow, which of these two do you rescue?" or "Execute the rightfully upset crewmember for disrespecting mah authoritah?" or "will I tell my friend that his pet project has been sabotaged in exchange for the greater good?".

The best choice is a multifaceted one, ambiguous, depressing, challenging. It tugs at my heartstrings. It's one where there is no right answer, or one where the ostensibly right answer comes at a hideous cost. It's one where I really have to pause the game and think for a bit before continuing while swearing at the writers under my breath. ( And not just to load my last save and unequip armor and weapons from the party member I have decided to sacrifice. )

The consequences can be as simple as a different cutscene, a different quest chain or a completely different game progression / ending - as long as it's done well and the illusion that "I matter" and "my choices have affected the outcome" is preserved I don't really mind.

Years, months, or even mere weeks later I will drag the game out again and try a different storyline, so it adds replayability too.

TL;DR: I do enjoy choice in game plots.
 
I think having narrative choices is overrated, especially when it seems like most games have it solely because it was a haphazardly adopted trend. Very rarely does it feel worthwhile or meaningful.
 
Frankly, I think that choices that impact the gameplay are the only ones that truly matter in the end, even though some more cosmetic or character based choices might feel satisfactory at times, but it's very hard to do, especially with bigger productions, voice acting etc.

I would personally prefer a game where choices have drastic and irreversible consequences that carry some weight. Like if blowing up Megaton in Fallout 3 forever removed a basic stat or made you permanently into a ghoul. You can't go back, there is no cure, people will hate your face everywhere but other paths will open precisely because you're a ghoul. Or say Shepherd gets a dramatic battle in ME2 and if you loose, your legs will be cut off and replaced by cybernetic limbs. This would permanently change Shepherd's look (cosmetic aspect) but would actually increase character movement by 20% as in actual walking and running around as well as unlock a new skill that enables you to rush into enemies and stagger them. This changes cosmetic details but also changes gameplay (faster movement and a new skill).

I'm sure it's possible to create a standardized intermingled choice system that relies on these choices and creates drastic changes in the game itself, not just the story or minor details.

Haven't played the Witcher games and Alpha Protocol but I'm interested to see how they approach this problem.
 
ctkayedisto said:
I'm still frustrated by Jack forever spurning my advances. I think I was too soft. Flirted with Liara some, I think I may have hit that. Role playing is fun :P Ended up
with Ashley I think? Did I save her in ME1 and let my broseph die lol? You see, I forget.

But, I also feel like (and I don't know if this is a good or bad thing), when I played through the series, I wasn't exactly constantly thinking about "what would have happened if..." If I hadn't known better it could have all been on rails, same result right? I dont know if this is a good or bad quality of "choice" in games or if it just is how it is.

Those choices were nice to make, and I appreciate them, but when the story starts to focus on the galaxy, and no matter what party you have or what your relationship with them you get the same basic "story," yeah it was disappointing and made me feel like my choices were more ancillary rather than the main focus.

Or: your hands and feet may be Liara and Garrus or Ashley and Jack, but you're gonna save the galaxy either way.

Edit: I probably got distracted by the epic galaxy story that they started pushing, although I still think that's BioWare's fault. Reading your story makes me want to replay though because I can't remember exactly what I did for all of those :P
Click to expand...

Much like a Phish show, it's all about the journey not the destination.

Off-topic, so sue me, but Chicago shows this weekend are being webcast, you should check them out. I know I will be.
 
It really depends. The only game I've played where your own decisions craft the story and outcome is just SMT though. There are things like visual novels as well where you have choices, but the things that happen are mostly outcomes just because you decided to go there or take this route. Then there are games where choices are only available to let you choose the premature bad end of a game (which is in most games featuring choices).

So do I enjoy them? Yeah, I do since it gives me some control. But I don't exactly want a game where every choice affects the plot. Just give me key moments that leads down a certain route, so the core story is still there and isn't a mesh of everything.
 
When they are done well yes. Just take a look at Fallout if you want to see how choice in game can be well done.
scar tissue said:
TLoU showed me that a tightly knit linear narrative is more fun than any "choice" game I've played.
I do enjoy stuff like Mass Effect, but I've yet to see a branching story that's as good as TLoU's.
Click to expand...
Fire up some of the older pc games. TLOU story is nothing special.
 
I think you can appreciate player choice in a game (along the lines of SMT) while still disagreeing with how Bioware handles it. It's a shame that when people bring up player choice in games, everyone's first thought is Bioware when it should be Fallout 1, 2, New Vegas, Alpha Protocol, etc.
 
a) save the villagers
b) kill the villagers
c) walk past the village and die because you needed the XP from choices A or B

DEEP MORAL CHOICES
 
If there's a fairly solid narrative I prefer less choices because mostly the developers simply handle choices badly.

I do like choice in terms of gameplay approach though - a'la Deus Ex or System Shock or TLOU as a more recent example.

My main gripe with how choices are handled as regards narrative is how simplistic and obvious they are - for example 80% or more of choices in ME are telegraphed and clearly about good/bad approach.

But the ability to chose in more open ways particularly around gameplay works much better.

Only game I really enjoyed choices in was Silent Hill 2 - probably because the game never actually made it obvious or known you were even making them and they actually mattered and made sense to the various outcomes.
 
If I'm not misunderstanding you, you're basically just saying that in a world with finite resources, you prefer quality over quantity. I don't really see what's wrong with that, not in an entertainment medium.

You also seem to be saying though that you prefer the illusion of depth and impact over the illusion of choice and control, and I'm not sure those two are divorced so easily in this particular medium. That's probably a discussion for another thread, though.

Honestly, the hypothetical choose-your-own-adventure game where no matter what route you take and it's like 100 incredible, fully fleshed out games all put together is something I've fantasized about for decades - but I'd agree that as long as time and resources are finite on game projects, it will really only exist in the imagination.

Fundamentally, I think I too would prefer a finely designed and crafted building to a boundless empty rock. Obviously though, it could be taken to the other extreme as well, and I don't think I'd enjoy being stuck in a richly decorated, densely packed closet either. It's all about balance, though I guess that could be said about anything.
 
Goldenroad said:
Much like a Phish show, it's all about the journey not the destination.

Off-topic, so sue me, but Chicago shows this weekend are being webcast, you should check them out. I know I will be.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up! Haven't been in a couple years, they playing well? Still prefer a Phish show's journey to ME's any day :3

Edit: well said though, and point well taken
 
Hell yes I do. Proper choices like in Alpha Protocol or the Witcher series are awesome and separate games from other story telling mediums. However, if the choices are in the style of Biowares "kick stand into his face vs offer him a lollipop".... those suck.
 
Tacitus_ said:
Hell yes I do. Proper choices like in Alpha Protocol or the Witcher series are awesome and separate games from other story telling mediums. However, if the choices are in the style of Biowares "kick stand into his face vs offer him a lollipop".... those suck.
Click to expand...
Fallout one does choices better than both of those games.
 
I Prefer choice, especially if a game allows for different approaches.

Sadly, choice is often handled poorly. It's especially annoying when it's binary good/evil stuff.

Do it like Obsidian/cdprojekt not like bioware. Or do them based around ingame actions.
 
Only when they're of worth.

Real choice > No choice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faux choice

Noogy said:
Personally I don't care for them. I want to see all the in a game, and really don't have time for multiple playthroughs.
Click to expand...

The price of knowing of, yet not knowing, in an information age, ladies and gentlemen.
 
Personally, I'd prefer if developers let you choose right from the get go which 'morality' tree you were going to go down right from the start and then just built that single choice directly into the narrative so you could have vastly different storylines between 'good' and 'evil' for example.

Take the inFamous series for example. It's just weird when the main character is always having to decide between the right or wrong choice in the moment. It makes no sense to have a character that is that indecisive.

I mean, who really plays through a game like that and doesn't decide whether they are going to be the good guy or bad guy right at the start. There is never any advantage to being neutral when the systems are built around decisions like that.

One option right at the menu screen- Good Playthrough or Bad playthrough. Two distinct narratives that make sense within the context of the game.
 
WItcher 2's choice was good as it changed basically everything after the first act

What I don't like is when your choices are supposed to matter like in ME1 and 2 and then in 3 it turns out you play essentially the same game as everyone else regardless of what you chose in ME1 and 2.
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
If I'm not misunderstanding you, you're basically just saying that in a world with finite resources, you prefer quality over quantity. I don't really see what's wrong with that, not in an entertainment medium.
Click to expand...
Quality/quantity is definitely part of it, especially when it comes to development expenses, but overall it's more about how a branching narrative diminishes the importance and consequence of a story or situation, forces developers to wrap their narrative around the branches instead of making it the best it could be on it's own, and either cuts what the player sees of characterization or forces parts of the narrative to adjust who and what they are in relation to the path being taken.

An example I've had in my head all day is Omar from The Wire. If you haven't seen it, it's too much to explain other than to say this: he doesn't have a monstrous direct presence throughout the series, but every scene he's in vital to understanding who he is. Where he came from, what's going on in his head, how he views the system, how he views life, etc., and taking any scene out diminishes your understanding of him. That's what narrative choice does, it cuts scenes out. And that's not even in relation to the whole story, just a single character.

You also seem to be saying though that you prefer the illusion of depth and impact over the illusion of choice and control, and I'm not sure those two are divorced so easily in this particular medium. That's probably a discussion for another thread, though.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to understand what you mean by depth here, only because there are so many aspects of a videogame it could describe. As for impact? I don't see it as any different than reading a good book or watching a good movie. The plot progresses as you turn the pages. Games incentivize this sort of thing through fun and entertainment, but in a linear story you're just along for the ride, and I don't think there's any illusion in that.

Also, I'd like to apologize in advance for the idea that all this choice and Mass Effect (and hence space Jesus talk) made me think of, but I just couldn't resist:

RY67g6x.jpg
Click to expand...
I had the creepy Shepard smile over it but it was nightmare-inducing.
 
I'd fucking LOVE a game where you have to make choices that radically alter the theme and story of the game... Witcher 2 was cool since the whole middle portion of the game was different depending on who you allied with at the beginning... but most games which brag about their "choice" are usually nothing more but some rewritten dialogue and stuff that doesn't really have too much of a massive effect (pun intended) on the game.
 
Lunar15 said:
I like it if it's done well. I prefer one really well written story to multiple, half-assed stories crammed in there to increase "playability".

But if each path is a solid story, then I'm generally ok with it.
Click to expand...

This, exactly. Witcher 2 has good and bad examples of this.

The good example is:
the branch 1/3-1/2 way through. Two different experiences. Both very well-written. And in light of the nature of the character, he really could go either way

The bad example is:
All of the different endings which really aren't fleshed out to any satisfying degree. Lots of JRPGs commit this sin as well. more endings =/= better.
 
I rarely give a flying fuck about choices in video game plots.
I wonder if it's the idea itself that bores me, or the fact that it's always badly tacked on, on top of horrible video game plots.
 
Chrysalis said:
This, exactly. Witcher 2 has good and bad examples of this.

The good example is:
the branch 1/3-1/2 way through. Two different experiences. Both very well-written. And in light of the nature of the character, he really could go either way

The bad example is:
All of the different endings which really aren't fleshed out to any satisfying degree. Lots of JRPGs commit this sin as well. more endings =/= better.
Click to expand...

I think you're overlooking the main reason that the story deviates so differently in the Witcher. What makes the decision to split the game in two after the first chapter such an intelligent narrative decision is that both paths are closely interlinked so you're only able to see the consequence of a major plot event
slaying the dragon
if you also play the other path. It's a moment that only really emotionally resonates if you play through both sides of the story and it's a kind of narrative that couldn't be told in any other kind of media. Even though the endings might not be all that impressive and still call it a poster-child for blocking large parts of content in games due to choices because it's such a unique experience.

On the other hand I'd look at games like Planescape or Mask of the Betrayer for titles that handle choices well in a more traditional narrative sense. Ultimately it shouldn't come down to choice in game plots, it comes down to the quality of writing in game plots and the writing style that you enjoy. For example I wouldn't call any MGS or JRPG outside of FFIX example of good story telling.
 
Spirit of Jazz said:
I think you're overlooking the main reason that the story deviates so differently in the Witcher. What makes the decision to split the game in two after the first chapter such an intelligent narrative decision is that both paths are closely interlinked so you're only able to see the consequence of a major plot event
slaying the dragon
if you also play the other path. It's a moment that only really emotionally resonates if you play through both sides of the story and it's a kind of narrative that couldn't be told in any other kind of media. Even though the endings might not be all that impressive and still call it a poster-child for blocking large parts of content in games due to choices because it's such a unique experience.

On the other hand I'd look at games like Planescape or Mask of the Betrayer for titles that handle choices well in a more traditional narrative sense. Ultimately it shouldn't come down to choice in game plots, it comes down to the quality of writing in game plots and the writing style that you enjoy. For example I wouldn't call any MGS or JRPG outside of FFIX example of good story telling.
Click to expand...

I mean- I agree. W2 is still my favorite RPG of the gen by a mile, most of that owing to the multi-dimensional story and solid writing. But if I have to pick nits...
 
If I'm playing a character who has a clearly defined personality then no.
If it's a Mass Effect where I'm imposing my character then maybe.
If I have to do multiple playthroughs to get wildy different endings or to change someone dying then get lost.
I you're going to give the player choice make it a key part of gameplay (
Mass Effect
) but if it's one or two choices over twenty hours of gameplay where the choice isn't obviously going to effect something major (
GTA4
,
Persona 4
) then it really is just providing choice for it's own sake. And that's just stupid. If you assign trophies to it too (
Virtues Last Reward
) then you will burn in hell.
 
A good GM will do it's job much better than the players would.

Against it, especially if it's extensive. Waste of resources, and excuses to slack on the writing.


EXCEPTION: 999. But that's not really choices, multiple playthroughs are needed for over-arching plot reasons.
 
Don't really care either way, if the developers want to tell the story of the game a certain way then wavy I can enjoy both design styles for what they are.
 
After finishing Planescape: Torment recently, I'm gonna say absolutely as long as the quality of choice is as good as or close to that of Planescape. The world doesn't really revolve around you, but you're still important enough to make some hard decisions.

I also like how you can make your intentions different from what you say. The 'Truth' and 'Bluff' options, the vows you make (which can be broken anyway) make the game amazing. And of course, everything affects your alignment.
 
Burt said:
You can preface what I'm going to say from here on out with "In most games...", because of course there are exceptions.
Click to expand...
Burt said:
I don't think there's a game out there that has all of these faults, but almost any game with significant amounts of consequential decisions fall prey to more than one.
Click to expand...
Don’t these statements pretty much agree that it’s a matter of execution? In which case, I can’t see why you’d be against the idea of narrative choices in general. Maybe you mean you’re against most devs trying it, since many seem to have no idea what they’re doing, but that’s a just different story.
Burt said:
These are just a few examples (that skew newer and Western), but they're also games that have been held up in recent years as some of the pinnacles of choice in gaming
Click to expand...
Dude, IGN once claimed that the remake of Tactics Ogre was following in Mass Effect’s footsteps because it had narrative choices. Tactics Ogre, a game that was released before Bioware had even finished making their first game.

I think it’s safe to say that maybe some people who say these things may not be too informed on the subject.
 
Depends, on the one hand I, on an intellectual level, enjoy the grand and complex linear stories of games like MGS and Silent Hill far more then up-to-the-player type stories like the ones you find in Mass Effect and Fallout.

But on the other hand I feel like choice makes me far more invested in the characters and their fate. Seeing all the shit Snake has to go through in the strugle to perservere and "finish the mission" was powerful and all, but it was nothing combared to
watching Mordin die in ME3
.

I think games that strive to balance the two philosophies do the best in this area, anyone who's ever played Red Dead Redemption or (for indie fans) Knytt Underground will undoubtedly know what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[GameSpot] Marathon Feels Like A Doomed Game. So Enjoy it While You Can.
Opinion  2 3
107
994
CrustyBritches replied
Games Where Choices Really Do Matter?
31
604
Polaris replied
Do you have Game Pass subscription?
2 3
135
2K
DavidGzz replied
  • Poll
How many games do you complete?
46
379
Fermbiz replied
What game do you think currently has the most toxic gaming base?
2
99
464
Bradamante3D replied
Top Bottom