The issue of choices in games....

[obin_gam]

.... and how they negatively impacts on the enjoyment of playing.

Can we talk about this?

Either I'm getting to old, but I dont think I am, but I found myself paying more attention to a game wiki and what upcoming choices were, than actually caring about the dialogue and how "I" would have answered it. THis goes back I think to a lot of games but most connected to this thread right now Dragon Age Inquisition. I found myself playing a couple of missions, then opening up the wiki and looking at how choosing diffrent sides impacts the rest of the game and what I need to do beforehand to get the choices "correctly". This seems counterintuitive to what the devs probably had in mind creating the choices -> I imagine having choices in games are there to make the game more living and that players on a whim impacts the world. I do not imagine the idea was to make players sit and read and decide beforehand what choices they are going to make, basically spoiling the game for themselves.

I like WRPGs... but I feel now that I would have liked it even better if choices were less impactful? Am I alone in this? It feels stressful to have the knowledge that I lock myself into certain things if I make certain choices and it would be less stressful to know that "sure you can make choices but that doesnt lock you out of things down the road."

I am not saying I have started to think WRPGs should be more like picture books - like JRPGs - not at all, just that games that force you to read wikis before and while you play are a weird design choice.

But maybe I'm just to old?

 

[Caiusto]

I particularly like choices better, I like to see how my choices impact the world and characters around me, and once I finish the game I'll look at a wiki and see what could I have done.

Of course, this only applies to good WRPGs, with good writing.

 

[Cocolina]

you're just breaking your own immersion playing how you do, if you're presented with choices in a role playing game you're expected to role play

that said, if a game doesn't immerse you into the character, does something completely unexpected/illogical based on your decision, or just gives the cursory illusion of choice with no impact then it's just a badly designed game

and steer clear of stuff from Supermassive Games if making decisions in Dragon Age stresses you out too much

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

That feeling of pressure is why I like those games. I even like being locked out of content.

 

[lvl 99 Pixel]

Meaningful choices in WRPG's are kind of a genre staple. The worst is the illusion of choice, where your choice doesn't really change anythign other than a single line of dialogue, if that. Fuck Persona 5 every time it pulled that.

 

[Linus815]

you are meant to be role playing, immersed in your character, you shouldn't stress about what choices are "right" or "wrong", you should choose based on your own (or your characters) mindset.

 

[Deleted member 36578]

I thought this thread would be about choices not mattering. Been playing a lot of Genshin impact and the amount of times it makes you pick a dialog option is nuts. After a few hours of playing I don't even pay attention to what they're saying anymore because the choices are meaningless.

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

Choices don't have to be really impactful as long as the game succeeds at convincing you that they are. That feeling of wanting to do the right thing is the key element in my opinion. If there was no pressure it wouldn't even matter if the choice actually changes the story. A fake choice that invest you in the story is more effective than real choice that you have no trouble making.

 

[lvl 99 Pixel]

Choices don't have to be really impactful as long as the game succeeds at convincing you that they are. That feeling of wanting to the right thing is the key element in my opinion. If there was no pressure it wouldn't even matter if the choice actually changes the story. A fake choice that invest you in the story is more effective than real choice that you have no trouble making.

Click to shrink...

What's an example of a game convincing you a choice is meaningful despite it not being so?

 

[I Like Ginger Cats:3]

Meaningful choices in WRPG's are kind of a genre staple. The worst is the illusion of choice, where your choice doesn't really change anythign other than a single line of dialogue, if that. Fuck Persona 5 every time it pulled that.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this. I can name so many games where things just didn't matter. Or where everything doesn't matter but at the end you just make some choice and that decides the ending and not what you did all those hours before.

Think this goes even back to even Fable 1. That's where I first noticed it and was like 'meeeeeeh'.

As long as it's giving the illusion you have some impact I am fine with it but sometimes it really is mind boggling how little stuff matters and you decide to google / wiki it after playthrough. King's Quest from few years back would be my number 1 pick recently that I completed though it's not some RPG and that's the point where I kind of decided to not worry too much about it anymore. Still loved it though.

 

[Deleted member 37928]

The issue is with you and not the game design. Your obsession with control is what ruins it because there is no one forcing you to use wikis except for yourself.

The whole point of having choice is that it leads to unknown consequences, which you in turn have to deal with. That's very much the core foundation of a good roleplaying experience. When you know the consequences it breaks that foundation and you suddenly have control over aspects that were not intended. Living with consequences can be hard, but ultimately that's the whole point of choice.

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

What's an example of a game convincing you a choice is meaningful despite it not being so?

Click to shrink...

Most of Telltale games. You cannot drastically change the story in them, but you feel like any wrong choice may kill a supporting character, even though the game always manages to save them in another way.

The smoke and mirrors fades away the second time you play them, but the first time around it is a really immersive experience.

 

[Rosebud]

I'm torn on this.

I like branching paths when you can come back at anytime (Zero Escape, 13 Sentinels...), but if the only way is to replay everything, I'll feel like I need a guide to get the best outcome and it sucks to play like that.

 

[lvl 99 Pixel]

Most of Telltale games. You cannot drastically change the story in them, but you feel like any wrong choice may kill a supporting character, even though the game always manages to save them in another way.

The smoke and mirrors fades away the second time you play them, but the first time around it is a really immersive experience.

Click to shrink...

Telltale put effort into that illusion, that's the difference. The choices can still give you varying dialogue and scenes even if the main story ultimately follows a straight line. Forcing the player to follow a specific path and pretending like they have any choice/variables kind of feels like a bad quest by a bad DM.

 

[Iztok]

I think having less satisfying or even developed endings is party to blame for this.
What's the point of answering "truthfully" when you're rewarded with a half-assed ending after.

 

[Necromanti]

Since I never replay anything (especially longer games), I sometimes look up the outcomes as well. I don't like being locked out of meaningful or better content, especially when the connections between the choice and the reward/outcome seem arbitrary.

 

[Rosebud]

I think having less satisfying or even developed endings is party to blame for this.
What's the point of answering "truthfully" when you're rewarded with a half-assed ending after.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. I don't want to answer like "myself" and miss the good/canon ending after 50-100 hours.

 

[EatChildren]

It's a you problem, not a game problem. You've idealised a 'perfect' run in your head and you want the game to accommodate this, instead of experiencing the game narrative as intended, which in these games emphasise (if poorly) causality of choices. In the best scenarios these narratives are tailored specifically around open endedness, where progression of events are in response to choices you've made, but you're trying to "game" the system like a puzzle which is in turn robbing you of experience the designers and writers crafted.

In your defence BioWare is notoriously shocking at handling choices well, often inorganic or comically transparent in good/evil or not "making sense", and often encourage you to "game" the systems (see: basically every BioWare romance arc, and the Paragon/Renegade options in Mass Effect).

But nevertheless the problem here is you want one of two things; either a linear narrative that exists perpetually as it is and always will be and thus has zero pressure of choice, or choices laden with foresight so choices are nullified and you're able to construct the narrative to your own making rather than a narrative that organically responds to your presence and actions within it.

And it's fine. It's a "centre of the universe" thing alongside FOMO in an interactive environment. Power fantasy, if you will, where events will play out how you like rather than in response to a choice you made. But it's not really a fault of the games so much as a factor of your own taste.

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

Telltale put effort into that illusion, that's the difference. The choices can still give you varying dialogue and scenes even if the main story ultimately follows a straight line. Forcing the player to follow a specific path and pretending like they have any choice/variables kind of feels like a bad quest by a bad DM.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely. For a rpg the narrative illusion is less important than the player having some control. But from the point of view of telling a story, I think having a player choose between two "wrong answers" is more effective than choosing between an obvious right answer and a wrong answer.

 

[TissueBox]

Speaking of Dragon Age, in Dragon Age II, for my first playthrough, I didn't even meet Isabela.

Could you believe that? Never even knew she existed.

I love it and hate it in the same time, but mostly kinda like it, when done right, correctly. Exclusion is key to making a game replayable and/or meaningful on a single go. Your story is yours, as long as it doesn't feel like too severe a punishment for something that wasn't in your power to know.

Bethesda is the one exception, but otherwise, games that aren't afraid to lock things away from players who go down a certain path are few and far between. To truly create a story that can essentially function as two, or three, four different ones depending on what you do and how you play is something wholly unique to interactive storytelling -- something that video games can utilize to its maximum potential, as an audiovisual, cinematic feast. Too many games almost feel like having the player do and see everything is going to 'always' be the 'correct' way to play the game -- when in reality, a relatable and meaningful, choice driven story is one where consequences create variation, branching roads that never intersect. Balance, of course, is important -- at a point, it may become too unearned and abstruse, which, fair enough, some games like DA:I can feel like sometimes -- but generally, so many games lean the other way these days because it's simply more design-friendly. But there is merit to variety -- even if, in the end, the same story is still being told, anyway.

 

[Kao The Kangaroo]

I believe The Witcher 3 did it really good, as there are no "good" and "bad" decisions there, just choices and their consequences. So in my opinion there is nothing bad in choices in games, but how they're implemented, when there is really a good and a bad choice.

In terms of checking the alternative choices, I prefer to do it after playing the game, to discover alternative endings and consequences, but not to change my mind.

 

[Dolce]

This is why I enjoyed Alpha Protocol so much. Choices had actual weight, but it was more than just +1 stats or something else where one choice is obviously better. Quite a bit of the game would change depending on your choice and how you approached levels. Completely new things would open up. I never thought "should I make this choice for some gameplay benefit?" but instead did what I thought would be interesting.

 

[giapel]

I like choices that affect quest outcomes etc.. as long as:
1. I don't get pressurised for an answer with a timer
2. The "choice" wording matches what the character eventually says and does (looking at you Mass Effect)

 

[Rosebud]

I believe The Witcher 3 did it really good, as there are no "good" and "bad" decisions there, just choices and their consequences. So in my opinion there is nothing bad in choices in games, but how they're implemented, when there is really a good and a bad choice.

In terms of checking the alternative choices, I prefer to do it after playing the game, to discover alternative endings and consequences, but not to change my mind.

Click to shrink...

TW3 has two good endings and one terrible where

Spoiler

Ciri dies

But overall I also like the choices/consequences of the game

 

[lvl 99 Pixel]

Absolutely. For a rpg the narrative illusion is less important than the player having some control. But from the point of view of telling a story, I think having a player choose between two "wrong answers" is more effective than choosing between an obvious right answer and a wrong answer.

Click to shrink...

I think my first CRPG was Baldur's Gate 2, and the fact that you could have characters in the party who hated each other was fascinating, and ultimately some of them would try to kill each other and you would have to make a real decision on what to say or who to ultimately keep around.

In retrospect that was one hell of a first rpg to be exposed to for choice because even within Bioware's subsequent games it never quite reached that again. Of course there are other games that follow that mould like Pillars or Divinity, but imo they never really came close to BG2.

 

[texhnolyze]

Can we still enjoy what's left in RPGs that give us what we like about the genre (impactful choices)?

These games are pobably not for you anymore, and that's fine. There are many other games that don't give you choices, you can play them all.

 

[Redcrayon]

It's a staple of RPGs to me, choice leading to consequences, sometimes unforeseen, sometimes wonderful, sometimes your actions coming back to haunt you, sometimes leaving you wondering about the road not taken. Trying for a 'perfect' play through is like reading a fantasy book about a protagonist that never makes a bad call, never makes an enemy that could have been avoided, never makes a decision they regret. It just seems like a boring character to me.

I get why, when games are often crazy long these days (heaven knows I moan enough about RPG bloat), players might want to see everything in one 'perfect' playthrough of the chosen one, of chainmail/space Jesus (looking at you BioWare/Skyrim) and never return. But in 25 years of playing tabletop RPGs, I've always enjoyed the post-campaign chat between players and the GM about the roads not taken, what we chose not to do, and what small decisions had big effects we still didn't connect, and I like seeing computer games at least try to approximate a tiny aspect of that.

 

[ray_caster]

I can not say I agree with your sentiment, OP. Outside of that, choices in video games rarely branch your game experience off on a completely different tangent, so I rarely feel like I miss out on a big chunk of the game given any particular branch.

 

[Catshade]

I love significant, meaningful choices. My problem is that those interesting choices are often tied to a 80+ hours WRPG. I don't have time to replay the game all over again (even more than once) just for altering a few choices. Yes, I can make a save game before every big decisions and try everything, but that feels like... save-scumming.

Which is why I love Alpha Protocol. Many decisions are game-altering, but the game itself is fairly short (10 hour-ish?) so I have no problem replaying the game a few times. We need more short, replayable RPGs like that.

 

[RiOrius]

Every now and then I try to play a game without looking things up and tell myself I'll do it legit, no worries, just trust my gut and let the chips fall as they may... and I just hate it. That's not the way I want to play games. I don't want to be surprised by what's behind door number two. I want transparency. I want to know my options and their consequences and make my decisions with that knowledge in hand.

Like, I don't look up everything, and I always give the game some time to try to show me how it works, but there are definitely times when some decision point comes up or some system is just completely opaque that I need to go online to figure out wtf is happening.

 

[Necromanti]

But in 25 years of playing tabletop RPGs, I've always enjoyed the post-campaign chat between players and the GM about the roads not taken, what we chose not to do, and what small decisions had big effects we still didn't connect, and I like seeing computer games at least try to approximate a tiny aspect of that.

Click to shrink...

The thing that is the hardest to approximate (yet arguably the most important) is that a good DM/GM will make sure that the campaign doesn't suffer and players enjoy themselves regardless of the choices made. It is of course harder to make a campaign in advance where every route is equally well-designed, and I guess the bloat makes it an even more time-consuming task.

 

[Redcrayon]

The thing that is the hardest to approximate (yet arguably the most important) is that a good DM/GM will make sure that the campaign doesn't suffer and players enjoy themselves regardless of the choices made. It is of course harder to make a campaign in advance where every route is equally well-designed, and I guess the bloat makes it an even more time-consuming task.

Click to shrink...

Of course, it takes skill and also the opportunity to tweak things in the moment to keep things focused on the players rather than a flowchart. Also, tabletop games are effectively playing RPGs in Ironman mode, where chance or poor tactics in your first and only attempt at a fight (or even what would be a minor random encounter) can lead to character death with no reloading, so there's a certain element of having the game designer able to react in real time by calling for wisdom checks on 'is this plan likely to succeed given what you know and your character's high intelligence' etc too. I do like it when computer games at least try to emulate that by both locking out and adding more options given high/low stats in your build.

 

[StrappingYoungLance]

This sounds like more of a you problem. There are some games where certain choices might lead to a far less satisfying outcome to be sure, but I think you need to be looking at consequences differently. Choices having a major impact shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, you're just getting to see the story shift a certain way. A character dies because of a choice you made? Cool, you got to see a more dramatic moment that others might not and a decision you made had an arguably significant impact etc. When done well a good game will offer consequences that will still make for a compelling experience, whether they be negative or positive.

Try to save looking up the choices and their consequences for after the game, it can be fun to learn how things could have played out differently.

 

[Redcrayon]

When done well a good game will offer consequences that will still make for a compelling experience, whether they be negative or positive.

Click to shrink...

One example of this I like is a Fire Emblem game where some characters can only be recruited if you've lost several others, as the game is reacting to keep your roster strong while not overloading a player that's doing well with extra characters with duplicate battlefield roles that they don't need. I'm sure some players are like 'I missed out on their 3 lines of dialogue!' but campaigns where not everyone survives and you find allies just as you're feeling overwhelmed always feel much more interesting to me for being less 'perfect'.

 

[BobbeMalle]

LOTR: The Third Age

 

[Pankratous]

In choice based games, I pretty much just always choose the good option. The nicest option. The people pleasing option.

In that sense it's not really a choice because I'll probably never pick the harsh/evil/rude choice.

 

[ZeroX]

I am not saying I have started to think WRPGs should be more like picture books - like JRPGs - not at all, just that games that force you to read wikis before and while you play are a weird design choice.

Click to shrink...

God I would like WRPGs so much more if they were like JRPGs lol, I never want to make choices and the choices I'm offered are never good

Or yeah just do it like Zero Escape where it's intended that you see every result of every decision

 

[TheMadTitan]

Not once have I used a guide to go through every response in a multiple choice to figure out what was the optimal path. I play, choose an option, and then go with it. Sometimes I pick shit on accident and I still roll with it aside from maybe a handful of cases where I will save scum that moment. But most of the time, once a choice is made, it's dealt with and I'll find out what other options do in another playthrough.

Prime example is when on my first run in ME2, a bunch of people ended up dead that I didn't want, likewise going into ME3.

 

[Joris-truly]

Actually playing TLOU2 right now and it bothers me there's no meaningfull agency in the encounter combat spaces that effects the larger story/world. Making a lot of noise downstairs -> going to the load door (hold triangle) - > but upstairs no one seems upset from the horrific noise downstairs. It would be neat and more Immersive if you'd get different reactive situation based on how you handled the encounter zone. People more on edge further on, make the world more believe in smalls ways.

As it stands now they feel old and immersion breaking. Presenting such an amazing organic looking world, but the underlying structure still being unreactive and lacking agency in a lot of ways makes everything immediately feel 'gamey'.

Summed up: I really like choice in games that effect the narrative/world, especially if your input of choice is playstyle based (instead of dialogue based)

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

In choice based games, I pretty much just always choose the good option. The nicest option. The people pleasing option.

In that sense it's not really a choice because I'll probably never pick the harsh/evil/rude choice.

Click to shrink...

I think games have gotten more clever about it not being as obvious. iirc there were a couple of quests in TW3 where being too nice got you the worst result. Or it may have been also Pillars of Eternity? Cant recall exactly, but I've seen it come a up a few times in the last five years.

 

[obin_gam]

[At work right now so'll come up with a longer anse later]

I've encounterd problems when I want to play as an evil character, but the choices doesnt let you know what will lead to bad outcomes hehe

 

[EatChildren]

[At work right now so'll come up with a longer anse later]

I've encounterd problems when I want to play as an evil character, but the choices doesnt let you know what will lead to bad outcomes hehe

Click to shrink...

This is definitely a problem, and it's less of a fault of causality based narratives so much as just really shitty writing. And it happens more often than we'd like. I think unexpected consequences for your choices should be welcomed openly, on the condition that they're contextually relevant after the fact. Not "I chose X because it seemed like it'd produce Y, and the game pulled Z out of its arse instead", so much as an interwoven narrative wherein choices may either be difficult and not absolute in their total, comprehensive conditions and consequences, and consequences that were unexpected but nevertheless absolutely believable given the context of the choices made. The Witcher series is generally pretty good at doing this.

Writing that implies something in a dialogue choice but turns out to be completely different because poor phrasing and wording lead the player to believe something else entirely is just straight up bad design though.

 

[wafflebrain]

The only game with dialogue trees I cared about in years is Disco Elysium, and that was down to the quality of writing and how well done the humorous aspects of it were plus just how well you could define your character through dialogue. I could care less about choice in most other WRPGs, many of them have so little character with completely flat archetypes that I usually just feel like I'm choosing whatever to get back to the exploration + combat. Overall I much prefer a tightly crafted, singular narrative. Choice is overrated in the vast majority of these games in terms of quality execution.

 

[Litigator]

I'm trying to think of a game where choices and the consequences of those choices was done well enough to actually substantially make the overall experience better. I honestly can't think of one. I'll take a well-crafted and well-written linear experience over one with choices just for the sake of choices any day of the week.

 

[Perfectsil]

I don't get it, if it's a second playthrough that you wish to get a different ending/see everything than I understand, but the first playthrough?

 

[Starlatine]

feels like this is more of a problem to people who cant bear the idea of playing a game without having the best outcome possible to everything

sometimes things dont go our way. thats fine in games too. you dont need to minmax and have all the better equipment and be loved by everyone to enjoy the game.

 

[Phellps]

I don't feel like any game is forcing me to read a wiki to decide which choices to make, and that's most definitely just how you approach these games, not their design. It's fine that I may get locked out of some stuff, it's fine that I may lose a companion, it's fine that an entire village may be decimated, it's fine that I may not have the outcome I desired. That's the whole point of it, to make your choices based on what you know and sometimes you just hope for the best and live with your choices. You talk as if these games have assigned right and wrong choices when most of the time, they actually don't. They're just different paths to different outcomes (sometimes different paths to the same outcome, even) and it all comes down to what kind of character you're playing.

It's fine not to enjoy this kind of gameplay, but I wouldn't call it an issue at all. In fact, I wish more games would truly reflect the impact of what I do when I'm playing.

 

[TaySan]

Don't stress about making the "right" or "wrong" choice. Immerse yourself in the game and choose the choice that makes sense to you.

 

[En-ou]

The issue is FOMO mentality. Just play and choose what you want to choose.

 

[Daouzin]

Don't stress about making the "right" or "wrong" choice. Immerse yourself in the game and choose the choice that makes sense to you.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this dilemma is crazy to me. The biggest issue Achievements have added to the gaming scene. I checked achievements before playing a game in the early 360 era, but after about a year doing that I realized using achievements that way was a mistake. Additional paths and (achievements) in a game should be for people that love that experience enough to replay it and want to see/earn that stuff, but the first go should be off the cuff and how you want to insert yourself into the experience. I just remember burning out on games worrying about achievements or "playing ALL the content," once I just focused on playing games in a way that's most natural to me, the burn out faded away.