I liked that in Indigo Prophecy.
You could either rescue a girl and risk getting caught by the police or abandon her in a lake and take the mental damage
Then you find out by saving the puppy you have now locked yourself to the bad ending. Joking aside as I don’t know what game this is, if it is one. I just recall Cave Story doing that, you see someone in danger and the only safe option to get the ending (and keep him alive) is to watch him crash, shrug and move on, not go check on him.
I hate when games do this, or like with fallout theres a few choices but some boil down to “save them, fight them, save them with a one liner, or fight them slightly more badass.” choosing how you do the good / bad thing very slightly doesnt mean you have more meaningful choice
Something I don’t like about this kind of choices in games is that the good choice is being a decent human being while the bad choice is being the worst piece of garbage ever, there is almost no in between, a lot of games fail to provide non manichean choices
IMO overall most games make you chose between two very predictable ending 99% of the time, the good choice being rewarded by long term reward and the bad choice by short term reward and it definitely get me out of immersion
Also not a fan of karma meter because most players want to be at best or worst karma and so you won’t make your own choices, instead you will just constantly ask yourself “what would the best/worst human being do in this situation ?”
Nuanced take: both simple choices and nuanced choices are good in different games. Fable is great because the choices are so comedically good and evil that it fits the monty python-esque comedy stylings. The Witcher 3’s more nuanced choices fit the darker, more gritty tone of the game and make it more immersive. Most games have choices that fit their core theme ideology.
The only game I’ve ever been frustrated with is Fallout 4 because it totally takes away player choice in favor of: Yes, Yes?, Yes (Sarcastically) and No (Yes).
Lol. This reminds me of someone’s attempt to make a Trolley Problem AI (the basic problem is usually if you do this, X people die, if you do nothing Y people will die) based on moral questionnaires given to real people. The trolley AI ultimately chose to save a single cat over the entire human race. 😹
It’s been 15 years (good lord) since Zero Punctuation [said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxo2X4B_LE), “I’m sick of games that claim to have choice but only come down to either Mother Theresa or baby-eating.”
All this time later and nothing has changed. I *can* think of games that had some subtlety in the various endings, but yeah they’re few and far between.
A lot of games have karma mechanics that have an entire town fight you to the death if you steal a lof of bread. (Looking at you Bethesda)
Interesting ethical choices in games require ‘injecting’ politics. Do you side with the democratic but poorly organised faction, or the authoritarian but stable faction? You have enough food for 1 person. Do you want to feed person X or feed person Y? Person X is a gangster who offers you their support and connections. Person Y is a farmer who offers you occasional shipments of food. Do you want to give up your own rations to save both but you get a permanent debuff for the entire game but gain friendship/perks from X and Y?
Interesting choices are possible but they sort of require that you put the player in a tough spot.
In an Obsidian Game: Revealed in the endgame epilogues that saving the puppy in fact cause the ruination of several small nations, leading to millions suffering.
I like that Infamous gave us the classic trolley problem. Save the woman you love, or save some innocents. There’s no saving both.
But Army of Two: 40th Day did it absolutely best. You’d get the same obvious choices between right or wrong, but there’s always a little video afterwards that show that the consequences aren’t always a happy ending.
I remember a game called Army of Two: The 40th Day that punished good behavior by informing the player of long-term consequences that neither they nor the characters could have predicted. For example, encouraging a child to retrieve a weapon for you (the immoral choice) gets the child killed by crossfire, but keeping the child safely behind cover (the moral choice) results in the child inevitably going home to murder his parents.
fuck when I was a kid I played fallout 3 and I was completely sure that bomb was not going to explode, because that didn’t make any sense to me. But oh boy
There’s a poor widow and her child asking you to buy some trophy or something that was her dead husbands.
You can:
A – Light Side Mother Theresa it and just give her a shit ton of money and let her keep the thing.
B – Steal the thing, and then rob her of the credits she does have for extra insult to injury.
On my evil play- through, option B was so cartoonishly evil and unnecessary that I busted out laughing. I remember my party members all being disgusted with my actions. Like, it’s beyond being a Sith. It’s being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
It’s like pretty early game too, so you aren’t like full darkside yet. Darkside Kotor runs were seriously my favorite.
no shade at octopath 2, amazing game
Fallout 3: Save the baby, or eat the baby
Do 1 genocide?
Yes
No
What if it was Hitler shape shifted into a puppy?
Pretty sure I know what my fallout character would do, just to be safe of course
Throw the baby in the oven?
I liked that in Indigo Prophecy.
You could either rescue a girl and risk getting caught by the police or abandon her in a lake and take the mental damage
“eat the baby”
Then you find out by saving the puppy you have now locked yourself to the bad ending. Joking aside as I don’t know what game this is, if it is one. I just recall Cave Story doing that, you see someone in danger and the only safe option to get the ending (and keep him alive) is to watch him crash, shrug and move on, not go check on him.
I hate when games do this, or like with fallout theres a few choices but some boil down to “save them, fight them, save them with a one liner, or fight them slightly more badass.” choosing how you do the good / bad thing very slightly doesnt mean you have more meaningful choice
Spec Ops : The Line giving hell and misery no matter what yours choices are 😭
Something I don’t like about this kind of choices in games is that the good choice is being a decent human being while the bad choice is being the worst piece of garbage ever, there is almost no in between, a lot of games fail to provide non manichean choices
IMO overall most games make you chose between two very predictable ending 99% of the time, the good choice being rewarded by long term reward and the bad choice by short term reward and it definitely get me out of immersion
Also not a fan of karma meter because most players want to be at best or worst karma and so you won’t make your own choices, instead you will just constantly ask yourself “what would the best/worst human being do in this situation ?”
Nuanced take: both simple choices and nuanced choices are good in different games. Fable is great because the choices are so comedically good and evil that it fits the monty python-esque comedy stylings. The Witcher 3’s more nuanced choices fit the darker, more gritty tone of the game and make it more immersive. Most games have choices that fit their core theme ideology.
The only game I’ve ever been frustrated with is Fallout 4 because it totally takes away player choice in favor of: Yes, Yes?, Yes (Sarcastically) and No (Yes).
Save the puppy?
Kill everyone in the room and then yourself.
-Rosa
I hate when they pretend to give you choices but it doesn’t matter. “Who will you save, person one or person two?” “Person one” “They die anyways.”
Lol. This reminds me of someone’s attempt to make a Trolley Problem AI (the basic problem is usually if you do this, X people die, if you do nothing Y people will die) based on moral questionnaires given to real people. The trolley AI ultimately chose to save a single cat over the entire human race. 😹
Yes: saves the puppy
No: character yells at you for being heartless and it brings you back to the prompt until you hit yes
Yall claim to want more choices in games and then Mass Effect gave you the option to kill Tali
Bioshock 1 moment
It’s been 15 years (good lord) since Zero Punctuation [said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxo2X4B_LE), “I’m sick of games that claim to have choice but only come down to either Mother Theresa or baby-eating.”
All this time later and nothing has changed. I *can* think of games that had some subtlety in the various endings, but yeah they’re few and far between.
Reminds me fallout 3
Do you want to nuke this town for no reason:
* yes
* no
A lot of games have karma mechanics that have an entire town fight you to the death if you steal a lof of bread. (Looking at you Bethesda)
Interesting ethical choices in games require ‘injecting’ politics. Do you side with the democratic but poorly organised faction, or the authoritarian but stable faction? You have enough food for 1 person. Do you want to feed person X or feed person Y? Person X is a gangster who offers you their support and connections. Person Y is a farmer who offers you occasional shipments of food. Do you want to give up your own rations to save both but you get a permanent debuff for the entire game but gain friendship/perks from X and Y?
Interesting choices are possible but they sort of require that you put the player in a tough spot.
In an Obsidian Game: Revealed in the endgame epilogues that saving the puppy in fact cause the ruination of several small nations, leading to millions suffering.
I like that Infamous gave us the classic trolley problem. Save the woman you love, or save some innocents. There’s no saving both.
But Army of Two: 40th Day did it absolutely best. You’d get the same obvious choices between right or wrong, but there’s always a little video afterwards that show that the consequences aren’t always a happy ending.
I remember a game called Army of Two: The 40th Day that punished good behavior by informing the player of long-term consequences that neither they nor the characters could have predicted. For example, encouraging a child to retrieve a weapon for you (the immoral choice) gets the child killed by crossfire, but keeping the child safely behind cover (the moral choice) results in the child inevitably going home to murder his parents.
But what if it’s a pitbull puppy and u saw a future where it will eat a child?
You diverted the trolley successfully to save the puppy…
Now it will kill 5 other puppies playing around further down the line 😧
Soulslike choice:
“I sure do love apples,don’t you too?”
-select yes=start a misleading and confusing questline ending in the worst finale conceivable
Select no= the NPC become an unbeatable demon that wreck you 60 times before you defeat him
I prefer the
Fuck cancer
vs
End world hunger
found in Saints Row (before the current reboot)
In some games, i.e. Pokemon, the puppy is saved regardless. In most cases it’s just so lazy designed that “no” prompts you to try “choosing” again.
fuck when I was a kid I played fallout 3 and I was completely sure that bomb was not going to explode, because that didn’t make any sense to me. But oh boy
Yes: “Thank you for saving my puppy! Here’s $500!
No: “Thanks for letting that puppy die >:) Here’s $500!”
“Kill the animals, save the frames”
Disco Elysium:
“Hold my beer.”
My favorite moral choice is Kotor.
There’s a poor widow and her child asking you to buy some trophy or something that was her dead husbands.
You can:
A – Light Side Mother Theresa it and just give her a shit ton of money and let her keep the thing.
B – Steal the thing, and then rob her of the credits she does have for extra insult to injury.
On my evil play- through, option B was so cartoonishly evil and unnecessary that I busted out laughing. I remember my party members all being disgusted with my actions. Like, it’s beyond being a Sith. It’s being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
It’s like pretty early game too, so you aren’t like full darkside yet. Darkside Kotor runs were seriously my favorite.
Bioshock gives you the riveting choice of “do i murder helpless little girls? Or do I not?”
I finished ghost of Tsushima for the first time on Saturday. That final choice was really hard and left me heart broken.
I’d say no just to see what happens, of course games rarely give real choice. No is just yes with extra steps.
To be fair, it’s nice to have choices that make ***some*** difference. Many player dialogue options seem like they do literally nothing, like:
[“Do you think I did the right thing, Player?”
a). “You did all you could. That’s all any of us can do.”
b). “No one can say what would have happened if you didn’t. We’ll never forget their sacrifice.”
… Errr… Let’s go B, I guess. 🅱️
“I suppose you’re right. Thanks, Player. Let’s press on!”
Hmmm… That’s suspiciously vague enough to work for both of these..]
Seems like it’s just not worth giving a choice at that point.
Pokemon: No, not that choice, we didnt write script for that, try again!
Me doing a second playthrough in any game be like : I know what I have to do but I don’t know if I have the strength to do it