The Third Option

[entrerix]

Why would anyone save a busful of doctors? The only thing worse would be saving a busful of lawyers.

 

 

again with the lawyers... what did they do to you?

[Gorth]

The bad guy has given you the typical sadistic choice. Save the woman you love or a bus full of doctors. You only have time to save one! What do you choose?

Your polls is flawed. Market analysis reveals that the largest disposable income group does not appreciate having to make sacrifices. Where is the instant gratification in that?!?

 

John Doe who is a nobody needs to feel special and important and therefore has to be able to pull off the things that he/she normally daydreams about while seeking escape in drugs, drinks, daytime tv, romance novels and video games.

 

Giving people hard choices reminds them of their usual shortcomings and lack of achievements and therefore is usually only popular among sadomasochists... or weirdos... or elitists... or...

 

So where is the obvious option (with neon sign that says 'THIS WAY TO HEROIC ENDING -->'?

 

Otherwise they'll miss out on all the backpatting, in-game sycophants heaping the usual drivel upon you 'you saved us, marry me, where would we be without you, nobody but you could have pulled it off', flag waving/fireworks/celebrations etc.

[Walsingham]

I love how as of 10 votes, no one chose the doctors.

 

For myself:

 

1) Any woman I love is going to haunt the **** out of me for not saving her. I tend to go for tenacious women.

 

2) If I love her, then by definition that includes letting doctors die.

 

 

A more interesting question would be whether you'd save your best friend or the woman you love.

 

And anyone who thought "the woman I wub IS my best friend" should immediately report to the French Foreign Legion.

[Rostere]

Poll needs Chaotic Stupid

[Purkake]

Alpha protocol would have just done it

 

 

A) Save the woman, and be a douchebag sexist

B) Save the doctors, and be a sarcastic jerk about it (the ugly stupid kind of sarcasm, not the elegant sort)

C) Save everyone, and be a complete and utter **** to everyone invovled afterwards.

 

 

 

...I hear Obsidian is working on a DLC for AP where you play Mike Thornton as a depressed middleaged man dying alone in a trailerpark because he got fired from every job he had and abandoned by everyone he ever knew because everyone hates his guts.

Now that's a sequel I can get behind!

 

You would have hard choices like choosing between spending your last few dollars on arthritis medication or some booze to put off suicide for a few more days, this could be further complicated by a time limit imposed by the drugstore closing in 10 minutes.

 

Emergent interactions with the (other) local drunk and the serial killer living in the trailer next to you. Exciting minigames like defending your last Twinkie from the rats and burying the hooker from last night.

 

Sky's the limit, Obsidian!

[Meshugger]

Of course you choose the woman, she's going to be the mother of your children and stuff. Who cares about a bunch of nobodies?

[Tale]

Is everyone so scared of spoilers? The dilemma itself wasn't the point, but the point was that the dilemma, as presented, sucks. But we keep seeing that sort of thing.

 

I'm not exactly one for dark and edgy, so I can have my appreciation for it, but I don't see it as fulfilling the objective of a dilemma.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Tale

[Maria Caliban]

The bad guy has given you the typical sadistic choice. Save the woman you love or a bus full of doctors. You only have time to save one! What do you choose?

Your polls is flawed. Market analysis reveals that the largest disposable income group does not appreciate having to make sacrifices. Where is the instant gratification in that?!?

 

John Doe who is a nobody needs to feel special and important and therefore has to be able to pull off the things that he/she normally daydreams about while seeking escape in drugs, drinks, daytime tv, romance novels and video games.

 

Giving people hard choices reminds them of their usual shortcomings and lack of achievements and therefore is usually only popular among sadomasochists... or weirdos... or elitists... or...

 

Strangely enough, your mockery makes me agree with the lack of suck-or-blow options.

 

When I look around me, I see lots of suck-or-blow. It's hard for me to think of an adult who hasn't had to make hard choices, or failed at something no matter how hard they tried, or come to understand they aren't 'special or important.'

 

Yes, when I was 18, the idea that 'life is hard and sometimes you don't win' was a deep revelation. Now that I've put a couple relatives in the ground and realized that a large number of the things I've hoped for won't be happening, I have to wonder what good this information does. Why pay $60 for blatantly artificial tragedy that doesn't add anything to my understanding of humanity or life?

 

If such moments could hit me in the emotional gut or lead to intellectual exploration, that would be one thing, but I've never encountered a no-win situation that didn't feel like the game developer going 'Head I win, tails you lose.'

 

You seem to be mocking people who desire facile, happy fantasies, but given the alternatives are facile, unhappy fantasies, I'm not sure how the first is less of a legitimate desire.

[Calax]

Isn't the point of games to give you a happy escape from reality? Giving a complete crotch shot to the player like done in infamous is just evil. I can understand "we wanna have an impact on the main character!" but don't tie it into a choice the player makes.

[Tale]

All I want is value. If you're going to make a dilemma, then it needs to be a dilemma. If there's a happy solution, then let's not pretend the unhappy ones are worth anything.

 

I like them both. I absolutely adore happy endings. But I have trouble finding a dilemma worth its salt.

 

But no, the point of games is not to give a happy escape from reality. That's the point of some games. Other games may have distinctly different objectives.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Tale

[Maria Caliban]

A game can be whatever it wants to be. However, I dislike the characterization of people who want a third option as slack-jawed morons.

 

And if a game is going to claim it's more than mindless entertainment, then it needs to show just that. The Infamous choice fails to do just that. In fact, most of these 'tragic' A or B choices fail to do just that.

 

Actually, the end of the latest Prince of Persia was probably the best instance of this. The player's choice is to turn off the game or play out the Prince making a horribly selfish and stupid decision. Bad things happening because the character makes the wrong decision is fine.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Maria Caliban

[Tale]

And if a game is going to claim it's more than mindless entertainment, then it needs to show just that. The Infamous choice fails to do just that. In fact, most of these 'tragic' A or B choices fail to do just that.

I'm glad you agree.

[Calax]

Biggest thing about the infamous choice is that it attached good and evil points to the different sides, I would be ok with it if it was a neutral choice, but adding in that value points thing just makes it turn to crap.

[Gorth]

You seem to be mocking people who desire facile, happy fantasies, but given the alternatives are facile, unhappy fantasies, I'm not sure how the first is less of a legitimate desire.

My mocking it the stuff of legends. It has its roots in reality. Just add cynicism and stir

 

If I should put it in a less mocking way (not sure if that is any better), I would say there is a large group of people out there who are easily and willingly manipulated by business men, who are experts in the field of manipulating large groups of easily and willingly manipulated people. I resent being manipulated. I pity people who are easily manipulated. I roll my eyes at people who live their lives on facebook because they like it better than The Real World ® and I despair at the thought of the masses that spend months, sometimes years of their lives living in MMO's, sometimes spending real money to buy MMO goods in virtual stores from unscrupulous merchants preying on them. Maybe it is because I really just am a grumpy old bastard that prefers to stare down Life in a contest of wills (and punch it in it's face if it doesn't get out of my way). The odd daydream is nice, but not a substitute for living.

 

So yeah, I sometimes indulge in mocking those I think spend much too time escaping into dream worlds as opposed to the fun of a challenge that needs overcoming or a bit of virtual exploration. That would be one of my vices then.

[Orogun01]

Biggest thing about the infamous choice is that it attached good and evil points to the different sides, I would be ok with it if it was a neutral choice, but adding in that value points thing just makes it turn to crap.

Or in the case of the Witcher, it's attached to whomever you want to screw.

 

The points are also attached to confronting groups, whichever you seek gratification from is going to pressure into making the decision.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Orogun01

[Maria Caliban]

And if a game is going to claim it's more than mindless entertainment, then it needs to show just that. The Infamous choice fails to do just that. In fact, most of these 'tragic' A or B choices fail to do just that.

I'm glad you agree.

Anything to make your day brighter.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Walk away.

[Humodour]

I shall destroy you ALL.