Games that limits your "fun" options in order to stay in character or to get the "golden ending"

[krazykidd]

I don't play for the best ending , i play for MY ending , isn't that the point of multiple endings? Plus i never look at walkthroughs nor do i replay my games so... No to your question i guess.

 

[The Madman]

Sadly, i havent played Thief 2 and i needed more people who DID so i can understand how polished is this version of stealth is. That, and i want to explore this notion that "You have to sacrifice 90% of the gameplay or even you AGENCY over the plot JUST to get the good/canon ending"

Dishonored is reminiscent of Thief's stealth and it has much the same feel in the way you move and interact with objects, how the gameplay itself works however is slightly different. Has a similar 'feel' to it though and it's clear Thief is where the developers took a lot of their inspiration. Stealth in Thief takes sound and visibility much more into account as opposed to the more simplistic line of sight the vast majority of games use, Dishonored included. This is why in Thief you have tools such as the moss arrow to muffle noises and water arrows to extinguish torches.

But then again Thief is also entirely stealth based. You *can* try to fight in Thief if you really want, but the mechanics aren't really that great for it and the game is pretty much designed in such a way that you're not expected to survive should you decide to run around picking fights. Garrett isn't a fighter, he's a thief. Your average guard is just as capable as he is at fighting and unlike Garrett they can call for backup. Then you've got fantasy enemies like the undead and even steampunk robots as well which Garrett is often all but helpless against.

You have to hide. You have to be sneaky. In Dishonored you don't, that's the big difference. Dishonored and Thief both however share the idea of having large, open levels that allow the player to explore and improvise.

Worth pointing out that gameplay isn't the only thing Thief inspired in Dishonored as the setting are very reminiscent of one another. You could totally see Dunwall from Dishonored being in the same world as 'The City' (Never actually given a name) in Thief. They share a lot of similar themes and ideas, for example:

Spoiler: Two fighting factions, one of religious fanatics using steampunk technology to fight the second, which are a secretive group that live in the shadows which follow a strange ancient god that gives them mystical abilities. In Dishonored that describes the Overseer and the Outsiders followers, in Thief, well, take a look.

Thief is entirely linear with only one real way to play, but more atmospheric and story driven as a result. It's also much more heavy on the horror elements to the degree some people consider the Thief games part of the horror genre. Dishonored has a branching plotline and multiple methods of playthrough giving an emphasis on player choice, but suffers as a result in the atmosphere and story departments. Much less horror themed as well.

So there you go, all you need to know about Thief vs Dishonored.

 

[Vault101]

You know what i am talking about: An Action RPG game ala Deus Ex or System Shock 2 with TONS of options. If you play more on the offensive and murdering everything in your path, you get the bad ending even if you get the most fun doing what the game gave at your disposal. If you play nice (as in, you solve problems in non lethal ways) you get the good ending even if the process is tedious and its CLEAR that the developers wanted to shoehorn a moral of "dont sucumb to power" at the expense of 90% of the gameplay.

your assuming that we all find "LOLOLOLO KILL EVERYTHING DERP!" more fun that other methods, every time

CHOICE is what thease games are about...you make a choice you get consequences..I found the stealth/non-lethal methods fun because they made made me think and plan carefully...pulling it off was far more satifying than gunning down mooks, I find taking a more pragmetic aproach and talking to charachters more fun than being an evil prick

]I love the Mass Effect series, but it was annoying as fuck when I had to start the game over because my character, who I was trying to model after myself, was too gray in terms of morals. You try to make Shepard act like a real human, at the cost of really getting anywhere socially.

I'l agree with this though, it essentially makes paragon/renegade binary good/evil

 

[Racecarlock]

Even COD understands that it's audience wants to shoot people, so it doesn't begrudge them for shooting people, so if you advertise a game on the basis of killing and looting, then telling the players they're evil for doing so after the fact reeks of being disingenuous.

Unless they NEEDED for that kind of audience to pick up the bait so they get bitchslapped with some facts later on the game. Spec Ops: The Line did just that.

Yeah, but spec ops didn't lie about the first part of the game. It didn't lie about being open ended. It just didn't show the whole game. Dishonored is a game that said "Hey, here are lots of people, here's lots of fun things to destroy them with, but if you use them to actually have fun you'll get the you are satan ending because morality blah blah blah". So you can't actually use the fun powers unless you want the bad ending or don't even care, and since this is the kind of game that attracts people who do care about story and characters over gameplay, most people are going to go for the good ending, which means lots of sneaking around with instant losses every time you're spotted, so it turns into a completely different game.

When are we going to have another game that goes "Here are the bad guys, blow them the fuck up and the good faction will throw you a big party, have fun". Instead we get this constant stream of moral crap that goes "There are tons of fun ways to destroy many different things, but if you do you will be known as a combination of hitler and satan forever and then you will feel bad if you have feelings". GTA IV had moral choices, but if you felt bored after sparing a guy you could always run over 60 pedestrians in between missions to make yourself feel better. Somehow, that feeling is lost when moral choice applies to all gameplay. Eventually I gave up on keeping high honor in red dead redemption because not enabling diplomatic immunity and killing everyone and their dogs just wasn't worth it anymore. Besides which, they respawn anyways, so why the fuck should I feel guilty? Even the dogs respawn. So fuck everything. Even in RDR it doesn't give you a "YOU MONSTER!" ending when you kill stuff, so even then infamous and dishonored and other moral choice games are worse in that respect. You're not making the choices because you're a good or bad person, you're making them either to get the good or bad endings or the good or bad perks or both good or bad perks and endings.

Point is, moral choice can suck it. If you're going to give me a consequence free environment but add in the consequences anyways, then it's no longer consequence free and I might as well put in another game that doesn't declare me Osama Bin Laden because I killed a few guys somewhere.

 

[DioWallachia]

Dishonored is reminiscent of Thief's stealth and it has much the same feel in the way you move and interact with objects, how the gameplay itself works however is slightly different. Has a similar 'feel' to it though and it's clear Thief is where the developers took a lot of their inspiration. Stealth in Thief takes sound and visibility much more into account as opposed to the more simplistic line of sight the vast majority of games use, Dishonored included. This is why in Thief you have tools such as the moss arrow to muffle noises and water arrows to extinguish torches.

But then again Thief is also entirely stealth based. You *can* try to fight in Thief if you really want, but the mechanics aren't really that great for it and the game is pretty much designed in such a way that you're not expected to survive should you decide to run around picking fights. Garrett isn't a fighter, he's a thief. Your average guard is just as capable as he is at fighting and unlike Garrett they can call for backup. Then you've got fantasy enemies like the undead and even steampunk robots as well which Garrett is often all but helpless against.

You have to hide. You have to be sneaky. In Dishonored you don't, that's the big difference. Dishonored and Thief both however share the idea of having large, open levels that allow the player to explore and improvise.

Worth pointing out that gameplay isn't the only thing Thief inspired in Dishonored as the setting are very reminiscent of one another. You could totally see Dunwall from Dishonored being in the same world as 'The City' (Never actually given a name) in Thief. They share a lot of similar themes and ideas, for example:

Spoiler: Two fighting factions, one of religious fanatics using steampunk technology to fight the second, which are a secretive group that live in the shadows which follow a strange ancient god that gives them mystical abilities. In Dishonored that describes the Overseer and the Outsiders followers, in Thief, well, take a look.

Thief is entirely linear with only one real way to play, but more atmospheric and story driven as a result. It's also much more heavy on the horror elements to the degree some people consider the Thief games part of the horror genre. Dishonored has a branching plotline and multiple methods of playthrough giving an emphasis on player choice, but suffers as a result in the atmosphere and story departments. Much less horror themed as well.

So there you go, all you need to know about Thief vs Dishonored.

But if they actually managed to make the stealth element just as good as Thief 2.........then wont that mean that the more pacific route is now MORE fun? as in, you feel more empowered and intoxicated by the power of remaining unseen, thus contradicting the theme of Dishonored of "Power Corrupts", but you still get the good ending.

See what i am coming with this? they HAD to make the good path suck just because the theme itself NEEDED it. My question is: When will THAT approach ever work? when, in the history of gaming, would a player EVER try a path that is dangerously cloose to be boring? at least compared to similar games that do the same while still retaining the fun

 

[The Madman]

But if they actually managed to make the stealth element just as good as Thief 2.........then wont that mean that the more pacific route is now MORE fun? as in, you feel more empowered and intoxicated by the power of remaining unseen, thus contradicting the theme of Dishonored of "Power Corrupts", but you still get the good ending.

See what i am coming with this? they HAD to make the good path suck just because the theme itself NEEDED it. My question is: When will THAT approach ever work? when, in the history of gaming, would a player EVER try a path that is dangerously cloose to be boring? at least compared to similar games that do the same while still retaining the fun

Huh?

I liked the stealth in Dishonored. Like I said above while it wasn't as complex as Thief's gameplay it still had a similar feel to it which I like, plus it's functional. Not exactly like the first-person stealth genre even has that many options to begin with either these dayss.

 

[DioWallachia]

your assuming that we all find "LOLOLOLO KILL EVERYTHING DERP!" more fun that other methods, every time

CHOICE is what thease games are about...you make a choice you get consequences..I found the stealth/non-lethal methods fun because they made made me think and plan carefully...pulling it off was far more satifying than gunning down mooks, I find taking a more pragmetic aproach and talking to charachters more fun than being an evil prick

But my concern is when the good path is not fun as the killing path because it was INTENTIONALLY hampered to keep it with the theme. In case on Dish-On-a-Red, it isnt as good as other games would have done it, but it HAS to do that because otherwise you will end up agreeing with the "power corrupts" theme and end up getting the bad ending.

Its easy to say that ALL approaches are fun, but when one ends up being more tedious just so the developers hammer a point, i hardly see any player agreeing with the message like any good story would. Players may only try the other path because "may as well try to other content of the game" rather than saying "I understand your point and i believe that doing it THIS way may be better in the long run of this world"

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Mass Effect 2 anyone? Go in the middle and you fuck over your chances to make everyone happy, since the only way to talk down the rivalries is to either be a saint or throw the biggest tantrum in history to make them stop.

I'd say it's the biggest offender. Makes you feel like you failed horribly if you so much as fart in the wrong place.

the only way that you can try to be somewhat grey and succeed in Mass Effect 2 is if you have an imported character with maxed Paragon/Renegade and own all the DLC, which you must play early. This gives you a big enough pool of Paragade points to give you some leeway with your actions.

If you are just starting out on a non import save on the base game, you have to pretty much do every single side quest and choice in one direction or the other to get the necessary meter to satisfy the rivals.

 

[thesilentman]

You guys seem to have taken away my only option, Dishonored. I liked the moral choice sorta, but it was rather flawed in execution. Maybe if they made the story darker with response to immediate gameplay, not just over time, would be something that appeals to me.

 

[DioWallachia]

But if they actually managed to make the stealth element just as good as Thief 2.........then wont that mean that the more pacific route is now MORE fun? as in, you feel more empowered and intoxicated by the power of remaining unseen, thus contradicting the theme of Dishonored of "Power Corrupts", but you still get the good ending.

See what i am coming with this? they HAD to make the good path suck just because the theme itself NEEDED it. My question is: When will THAT approach ever work? when, in the history of gaming, would a player EVER try a path that is dangerously cloose to be boring? at least compared to similar games that do the same while still retaining the fun

Huh?

I liked the stealth in Dishonored. Like I said above while it wasn't as complex as Thief's gameplay it still had a similar feel to it which I like, plus it's functional. Not exactly like the first-person stealth genre even has that many options to begin with either these dayss.

Let me rephrase it:

Killing or Stealth are fun in their own way. No question about it.

Lets say i play Thief 2 back in the day and the stealth is quite complex and awesome, so i would think that a new gen title will have the same but MOAR, right? Enter Dishonored, whose stealth is, like you said, FUNCTIONAL; Not as good but it works.

Trying to understand this backwards mentality of bringing back the First Person Stealth genre by....... NOT polishing or innovating on it, i find answers in the narrative itself. It keeps hammering this idea that if i sucumb to power, i would get the bad ending, something that is hard to avoid when all the fun is on the Dark Side, SPECIALLY when the more stealthy approach is less than stellar precicely because the theme points this as the "good" path.

So if i ever get to the good ending is because i was just curious to see how it ends, rather than in agreement with the message the game gave us. And if they did the inverse, as in, they made the more "fun" path (in this case, killing) the less fun path (in this case, the stealth) the "bad" one, then i would be rewarded with a good ending even if i am a murderous crazy man and doing the opposite of his message.

It would be like me going to a PETA reunion to eat some cake and sandwiches, and people believe that i am there because i AGREE with the bullshit of PETA rather than the obvious fact that those sandwiches are the shit. But my mere presence there means that PETA wins me over by default even if, once again, i dont give a shit about it.

 

[Gregory McMillan]

it's the developer's laziness on the most part. Remember Silent Hill 2 where you can get the ----- ending for ------ at the ------. Or the ----- ending if you ----- -----? And the ------ ending if you gathered ------, -----, and ------? Nowadays its either you killed too many people or have been an upstanding citizen

 

[Zhukov]

I like being able to play as a non-lethal ghost.

I didn't like how Iji did it. There weren't any mechanics to support that kind of playstyle. Non-lethal boiled down to bunny-hopping past all the enemies.

 

[Henriot]

My first playthrough these types of games I play for the character, rather than the ending. If some character says I'm a saint for not killing anyone or a demon for killing some security guards, then that's just part of the character. These games are giving us choices in how to approach confrontations (not counting Deus Ex:HR boss fights), and I enjoy the fact developers make it EASIER to shoot/kill people rather than sneaking up on them and buzz them to unconsciousness. But that's only in relation to the "endings" or playstyle.

As far as "perks" are concerned, I think the only solution is to give you more options to get to your set level of evilness with the option to toe the line of saintliness.

I haven't played the rest of the Mass Effect games, but in the first one I remember finishing it with a maxed out Renegade bar with about 1/4 filled Paragon. Later games ruin that flexibility?

 

[DoPo]

Mass Effect 2 anyone? Go in the middle and you fuck over your chances to make everyone happy, since the only way to talk down the rivalries is to either be a saint or throw the biggest tantrum in history to make them stop.

I'd say it's the biggest offender. Makes you feel like you failed horribly if you so much as fart in the wrong place.

the only way that you can try to be somewhat grey and succeed in Mass Effect 2 is if you have an imported character with maxed Paragon/Renegade and own all the DLC, which you must play early. This gives you a big enough pool of Paragade points to give you some leeway with your actions.

Technically, there is another way, too - cheat. That's what I did, and, damn, was I glad I did it - I could finally play a Shepard that could express different emotions - being calm then just Persuade people, being pissed off - Intimidate them. I can't see why a Paragon Shepard, for example, couldn't start yelling at somebody and waving a gun in their face or a Renegade one couldn't just stop whining and getting pissy all the time. Normal human beings can act differently towards different people, you know.

 

[Kopikatsu]

TIME TO BRING UP COD IN A THREAD ABOUT CHOICES. Since most of the other well-known franchises for this have already been mentioned (Thief, Dues Ex, Mass Effect, etc)

Anyway, I had this problem with Black Ops 2. The Golden ending is kind of...unintuitive. The theme of the past sections of the game seems to be 'Trust noone' while the future sections are 'Join together' as far as the best ending goes.

Spoiler

Disobeying Hudson's kill order to save Alex, executing Harper to preserve Farid's cover while Harper is shouting "DO YOUR JOB", etc. But ESPECIALLY that thing with saving Alex. Woods even flat out says that he never disobeyed the order even if you do choose to save Alex and it gets explained that the reason he didn't kill Alex was just that he was a crap shot. You have to actually have to act out of character in order to get the best ending.

 

[DioWallachia]

I like being able to play as a non-lethal ghost.

I didn't like how Iji did it. There weren't any mechanics to support that kind of playstyle. Non-lethal boiled down to bunny-hopping past all the enemies.

Even if in the new version you can use the Reflector without counting the kills, the only saving grace in doing so is that at least she doesnt become a murderous ***** and the ending is slightly changed. Maybe it could have worked it HAD become the stealth game that was originally intended? or have both paths be fun by having another set of weapons hacked and redesigned into a more defensive or stealthy approach, while still having the same ending at the end?

And that is a topic worth discusing: In what case you would prefer doing something less fun and tedious in order to preserve the integrity of the plot, characters and theme? and if you played one that failed to engage you doing that, then what would be the reason? What would be your ideal approach? just making both paths fun?

 

[DioWallachia]

TIME TO BRING UP COD IN A THREAD ABOUT CHOICES. Since most of the other well-known franchises for this have already been mentioned (Thief, Dues Ex, Mass Effect, etc)

No mention of Alpha Protocol? or maybe Infamous? people forgot them already?

 

[Kopikatsu]

TIME TO BRING UP COD IN A THREAD ABOUT CHOICES. Since most of the other well-known franchises for this have already been mentioned (Thief, Dues Ex, Mass Effect, etc)

No mention of Alpha Protocol? or maybe Infamous? people forgot them already?

Never played Alpha Protocol so I can't comment on that, and inFamous was terrible with it since it suffered from the same problem as Mass Effect 2. I will say that the Evil ending of inFamous 2 was a real heart breaker though.

 

[The Madman]

Let me rephrase it:

Spoiler

Killing or Stealth are fun in their own way. No question about it.

Lets say i play Thief 2 back in the day and the stealth is quite complex and awesome, so i would think that a new gen title will have the same but MOAR, right? Enter Dishonored, whose stealth is, like you said, FUNCTIONAL; Not as good but it works.

Trying to understand this backwards mentality of bringing back the First Person Stealth genre by....... NOT polishing or innovating on it, i find answers in the narrative itself. It keeps hammering this idea that if i sucumb to power, i would get the bad ending, something that is hard to avoid when all the fun is on the Dark Side, SPECIALLY when the more stealthy approach is less than stellar precicely because the theme points this as the "good" path.

So if i ever get to the good ending is because i was just curious to see how it ends, rather than in agreement with the message the game gave us. And if they did the inverse, as in, they made the more "fun" path (in this case, killing) the less fun path (in this case, the stealth) the "bad" one, then i would be rewarded with a good ending even if i am a murderous crazy man and doing the opposite of his message.

It would be like me going to a PETA reunion to eat some cake and sandwiches, and people believe that i am there because i AGREE with the bullshit of PETA rather than the obvious fact that those sandwiches are the shit. But my mere presence there means that PETA wins me over by default even if, once again, i dont give a shit about it.

Still not quite sure I follow. When I said functional I didn't mean that as a backhanded insult, I meant it exactly in the definition of the word: it works. Works well even, like I said I enjoyed playing stealthy in Dishonored and I'm glad the game gave me that option. However with that said I also keep in mind it's just that; an option. Stealthy is only one way of playing the game and so it would be unfair of me to say it must have this one facet of the game be as good or better than the highpoint of the entire genre, in this example stealth and the Thief series.

As for the whole ending thing... I really don't care. I'm not sure why someone would be upset about it either. Would you have rather the end of the game just have a choice of doors to walk through in order to choose which ending cutscene you get? It's just a cutscene. A game like Dishonored is all about the experience, it's about the ride. Replaying levels and finding different means of doing things or neat secrets you hadn't noticed before. I also like that different playstyle will garner different results, gives me further motivation to want to replay the game.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Nomanslander]

Mass Effect 2 anyone? Go in the middle and you fuck over your chances to make everyone happy, since the only way to talk down the rivalries is to either be a saint or throw the biggest tantrum in history to make them stop.

Thank you for reminding me just how much that sucked.