Delayed Consequences & Ripple Effects

[Adhin]

Im a big fan of more neutral choices but, some issue I had with Witcher and a few others is there idea of 'neutral' is make both seem like the most awful pointless choices and force you to pick between the 2. Skyrim's war quest is a good example of it. They don't make either side look even REMOTELY appealing unless you somehow buy into either sides propaganda. I liked how Alpha Protocal had some shifting stuff based off the order in which you did things, and how you treated people with in that. That was just a list of games from Obsidian I really liked but wish they ahd more time on to polish things out more, and really hoping this one gets that time.

 

Either way the second they force a 2 sided choice where both options suck is the point where I tend to just stop enjoying it. I think a good way to handle 2 sucky choices and still make it enjoyable was with BG2. You picked between a bunch of cutthroat thieves, or a secondary, shady faction that's been murdering the thieves who... live in a graveyard (and turn out to be vampires). Looking at it from an outward perspective, both options seem horrible but they're presented in game in a more enticing way that doesn't 'make' them seem like horrible options. At which point your picking between 2 options that seem like they could be fun and ... to me that's 2 play throughs staring me in the face at that point.

 

But yeah if they take the Skyrim approach to making all the sides look horribly awful as there idea of 'neutral'... give me a third option that lets me just screw up both sides for all being crap.

 

-edit-

OH! Derpy-derp-derp... in relation to the ACTUAL Op question. Yes to delayed Consequences hah, kinda forgot to go with that. Alpha Protocal was my only real example to it. Also kind of liked how Witcher 2 did some of that but ultimately I didn't enjoy that game in the slightest. Just didn't enjoy the combat, and halfway through the game it just... well. I didn't enjoy the game, which is kinda sad since I was looking forward to a less self-sensored piece of material. I sware if I see another story with some naked creature that has magical hair-stranged magically ducted taped to her... I mean just don't write the story that way! It's not that hard! Meh... things and stuff.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Adhin

[agewisdom]

Seems like Alpha Protocol is a very cool game. It's one of the few Obsidian games I missed since FPS is not really my taste (except for Deus Ex). Maybe I should give it a go... hmmm

[Aldereth]

Just want to add not to make this too often and the consequence too far reaching to make this annoying.

 

On a separate note, I would also like to see a viable and interesting path after negative consequence. By that I mean, after a player make a poor decision and people die (and I don't mean those decision the game force you to make). In most cases, the player will reload. I have yet to see a cRPG that have a viable and interesting path after some negative outcome from an ecounter.

 

Agreed on not making too many quests of this type. In fact, I believe it should be restricted to around maybe say 3 quests but ones than span throughout the game. It should be a major side quest, with appropriate grave consequences. This would avoid diminishing its' impact.

 

A path to redemption huh... , definitely great. At least the PC has some way to make amends for his/her mistakes.

 

 

Yeah, considering how many of us learn from our mistake in real life, it is just odd that due to the ability to reload old save, cRPG heroes by the most did everything right : )

[Freddo]

I really liked how this was implemented in The Witcher, consequences weren't apparent until later and no choice was ever completely the "right" one.

Yeah, same. It would be rather nice to see consequences from a choice I made 10 hours ago. For many games the consequences are just an instant gratification, I want it to be a bit deeper than that.

[agewisdom]

I really liked how this was implemented in The Witcher, consequences weren't apparent until later and no choice was ever completely the "right" one.

Yeah, same. It would be rather nice to see consequences from a choice I made 10 hours ago. For many games the consequences are just an instant gratification, I want it to be a bit deeper than that.

 

Yep, I feel the same way. If it's to be implemented, has to be used sparingly since there are people that don't like this.

[TrashMan]

My thought of this matter are simple:

 

Choices and consequences shouldn't fabricated or constrained to follow any specific pattern. They should be natural and logical. No more, no less.

 

Grey shouldn't be forced anymore than white or black should.

[zimcub]

I would like for "some" (too many would be annoying) of the choices to have consequence down the road that you might not predict unless you really carefully look at the hints around you, because it adds replayability.

Some people say that this may annoy them and that they will simply look at the walkthrough to get through the game. I see no problem with this. If someone wants a game where everything is to be known beforehand and what their choice affect, then looking at a walkthrough won't really spoil their game will it? You're free to get as much help from the internet as you want.

However people that want to be surprised don't have an alternative at all if everything is already pointed out in the game.

[TrashMan]

I don't think the palyeds to know everything. Who ever does in life?

 

It might lead to one or two "how as I supposed to know?" situations, but so what?

 

Yep, it might be true in real life but in PC games - it might just annoy players and make them feel compelled to use the strategy guide/walkthrough. I'm all for unexpected surprises - whether good or bad, but I think we're both in the minority here.

 

 

Every decisions you make can (and will) annoy some palyers.

 

The devs should focus on making a good game and ignore stupid complaints.