Do choices alter any game play experiences at all?

[Taurus]

I agree that if you desire some option that is beyond the scope of the game, you're left wanting.

 

As far as Defiance Bay goes, I'm talking about which faction you align with, which leads to significantly different experience over that section of the game. It's always a trade off though, I think the further you get into a series the more you can play with multiple endings. Otherwise you might have to canonize certain one's early on to trim back the combinatorics of story progression. Maybe that's fine by you, to experience your desired ending, then have the sequel assume another. I guess that's quite realistic since some decisions are self-terminating.

 

I personally am more into the journey than the destination, so that colors my opinions here. But I also enjoy devs telling a story to the player and getting to open ended can hurt the narrative. I really do want more choices with drastic impacts along the way in Deadfire, there weren't enough in my opinion.

 

 

 

Sawyer hinted that you can side with Eothas this time around though. I do believe this time things'll play out as Taurus says, which, tbh, is what I expect from every rpg I play. That said, if story, choices in general and final slides are good I can overlook this bar lowering regarding roleplay.

 

 

Hopefully what Sedrofilos says comes to fruition! 

 

And Injurai, yes, I also loved being able to side with the the dozens, knights or domenels (or none) . Thats the exactly the kind of gameplay uniquiness I expect from the outcome of main game. (bear in mind, that although those decisions were necessary in order for the main quest to advance, they were just the means to the end that was the audition in that chapter).

[rjshae]

Having your choices significantly influence the outcome of world-shaking events just seems to over-blown to me. You're just a small part of a much bigger picture. Perhaps at most you can change the destiny of a town or city, but that should be about it... unless you're playing a god.

[Taurus]

Not at all. Just imagine the different outcome if the pilot of the airplane that nuked Hiroshima decided not to do it. 

[Wormerine]

Not at all. Just imagine the different outcome if the pilot of the airplane that nuked Hiroshima decided not to do it. 

Choice in game (at least as far as story is concerned) is always an illusion - all possible choices are predetermened and predesigned by devs and there is a finite amount of them. As a result, the way Devs want to use them is to create maximum illusion of choice with minimum workhours required. Creating lenghty "alternative reality" choices like in Witcher2 or Tyranny in the end work poorly - sure the differences in outcomes are bigger, but don't create better illusion. The moments of making a choice which are the most rewarding are: moment of making the choice (setup) and seeing a consequence (payoff). The problem with Witcher2 and Tyranny is that while impressive, they still bring a satisfaction of a smaller branching decision, but require much more work from Devs. In addition both of those brought new issues - you need to replay Witcher 2 twice to really know the whole plot, and both storylines have some awkward moments with storypoints which work in one "reality" but dont make sense in the other. Tyranny on the other hand, is so preoccupied with responding to decision made in Act1, it doesn't have space to engage player with new choices making experience feel scripted and linear, therefore breaking the very illusion it is trying to sustain. 

 

Deadfire has much space to improve - some of big decisions lacked good setup or payoff. Joining faction was done quickly, before you could really get to know them, creating decisionmaking either unexistent - when you found yourself locked with a faction against your will - or weak, as you had to make a decision with having much to go on. Some big quests failed in delivering payoff - the court scene itself works well, but no matter if you argue for or against animancy the immediate game reaction is to erase your imput by Thaos' intervention. While game has short and long term reactivity - different behaviour of NPCs during riot and different end slide - it is not enough to make up for cancelling your trial midway through. 

 

Kind of reactivity I am hoping for can be found in White March - regular amount of choices, which game respects with predictible and unpreictible consequences, all with good setups and payoffs. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Wormerine

[Sedrefilos]

Choice is not an illusion. You're given choices A, B, C, D etc. You make one of them. The illusion is to play a game and expect you're going to get real life choices/consequences :D

It's like I ride a car and expect I can make it fly

Edited February 1, 2018 by Sedrefilos

[Gary1986]

Most games will give a player, lets say 4 paths to walk down, and each path has its own set of obstacles and confrontations, now each path technically can be a completely different viewpoint and experience based around the same story, but ultimately all 4 paths will lead you to lets say your front door at home? 

 

People expect so much difference between the different paths in a game, they expect all 4 paths to act like 4 completely different games. Lets say a game offered you that though, they gave you basically 4 games in 1. Now what? When they release the next game ( game number 2 of the series) the fans will expect there 4 different paths from the previous game to be represented right? Which means ''this new game 2'' now has to make the game fit around 4 paths, BUT, people will want more choice again, so now the game has to make sense for all 4 paths from the previous game and now offer 4 more new paths for each path from the previous game. (does any of this make sense?) Im sure you get what i mean.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Gary1986

[daven]

Multiple paths and choices are overrated. How much choice did BG1/2 have really? Not that much, and they were awesome.

[Taurus]

Choice is not an illusion. You're given choices A, B, C, D etc. You make one of them. The illusion is to play a game and expect you're going to get real life choices/consequences :D

It's like I ride a car and expect I can make it fly

 

This. 

 

But on topic, I really like the way PoE managed the choice/consequence in most of their quests outside of the main one. Like , going back to Roedrick, you really could give the wrong anwser and fight all those guys, and it was NOT an obvious choice. Than later on if you did, you learn that they all became undead crazies. 

 

 

This kind of subtle choice/consequence is what I expect for PoE2.

 

Tyranny's multiple path was too much obvious and "in your face" choices . You knew exactly what you were missing going for one path or another.  You could than just go to youtube if you didn't have time to play again to see how it turned out. 

[Taurus]

Multiple paths and choices are overrated. How much choice did BG1/2 have really? Not that much, and they were awesome.

 

BG1 and 2 at least had companions paths! Don't remember their names, but if you had some evil chars, they would fight the order-good ones or leave your team for good. 

 

That was also cool.

[daven]

 

Multiple paths and choices are overrated. How much choice did BG1/2 have really? Not that much, and they were awesome.

 

BG1 and 2 at least had companions paths! Don't remember their names, but if you had some evil chars, they would fight the order-good ones or leave your team for good. 

 

That was also cool.

 

Yeah I like some little choices which seem kind of... organic? Dunno if that's the right word. Where you're not thinking of the gameplay outcome of the choice, you just do what feels natural at the time because you're probably not even aware there's an implication of the choice... or something.

[Taurus]

Yes, organic choices. Or subtle, as i've said before. 

[Wormerine]

Yeah, a lot of reactions in BG2 were initiated by companions themselves, without input from the player. That way they felt like they talked to you and acted on their own volition. The later iterations on the system usualy waits for player to initate reactions - whenever it is conflict or romance and companions rarely go into impactful conflict with each other. Josh’s relationship system seems to aim to restore that feel of companion agency, while adding an element of, more or less conscious, player Imput. Hopefully we will end up with organic feel of BG2 with more varied outcomes depending on our choices and party compositions - pencil me in as “intrigued”.

[IndiraLightfoot]

My biggest gripe with BG2 was actually its linear feel, at times, almost railroading, for sure.

What I expect Deadfire to have, given our ship(s) and the archipelago, is much more side quests and much more room for some good old exploring.

[Mannock]

My biggest gripe with BG2 was actually its linear feel, at times, almost railroading, for sure.

What I expect Deadfire to have, given our ship(s) and the archipelago, is much more side quests and much more room for some good old exploring.

I find BG2 ambivalent in that regard. Cause Act 2 is a major part of the game (which, granted, varies depending on your style of play) which is very open. I find it the best part of the game.

 

When you move on to act 3 (and the following acts after that) it gets more linear, that is true.

 

But in my book BG2 has a very open style of play for a large portion of the game and I think that's why so many remember it fondly.

[Wormerine]

 

My biggest gripe with BG2 was actually its linear feel, at times, almost railroading, for sure.

What I expect Deadfire to have, given our ship(s) and the archipelago, is much more side quests and much more room for some good old exploring.

I find BG2 ambivalent in that regard. Cause Act 2 is a major part of the game (which, granted, varies depending on your style of play) which is very open. I find it the best part of the game.

I rate "freedom" of my RPGs based on how much creativity and choice you have in completeing quests rather than how many quests it throws at you at the same time. While act 2 opens the world up, and gives you access to many quests to choose from, individual quest still have a fairly rigit structure. It certainly gives a feeling of overwhelming freedom, as you can abandon on thread and follow another, but quests themselves are fairly limited. Not a bad design per say: it allows for a feeling of influence, while keeping structured and easy to control enviroment. SR: Dragonfall used this very formula with a great success - bunch of linear sidequests with some choice involved within, which you can complete in any order you wish, with main story content between missions all leading toward final objective.

 

Now, when I am thinking about it - I am trying to figure out what is different between 2nd Act of BG2 or Dragonfall and something like KOTOR or Dragon Age: O. The latter two examples never worked for me, and I found the "freedom" too easy to see through. BG2 and Dragonfall maintained the feeling of freedom, even though I am fully aware of the structure... huh.

[wanderon]

The main thing I didn't care for about the way the game progressed in BG2 once you got to chap 2 was it starts by giving you a major "plot twist" quest re: Imoen then proceeds to dump a gazillion more or less "optional" quests on you from every Tom **** and julia your party strolls within shouting distance from  - very few of which seemed dire enough at the surface to feel like they should distract you from the main thrust re: Imoen - other than the contrived issue of raising a fairly substantial pile of cash.

 

This bothered me from an RP standpoint primarily (like I kept feeling I should be rushing to Imoens aid instead) but I almost never did.

 

That was not the case in BG1 where it seemed much less bizarre to have my character wander off into the wilderness (grieving my loss) and stumbling into numerous small adventures (gaining levels and recruits) before signing on to the main plot line and moving it forward.

 

None of which stopped the BG series from holding my attention for most of a decade and remaining today the game I have no doubt played more than any other I ever owned.

[rjshae]

Not at all. Just imagine the different outcome if the pilot of the airplane that nuked Hiroshima decided not to do it. 

 

Yeah, but the point is you're almost certainly not the pilot of that particular mission. Typically you're a random Joe Shmoe with some skills. Even a Watcher should really just be that: an observer with a unique perspective.