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

[DioWallachia]

Personally from the impression I have formed of Dishonored after many many playthroughs (think I'm up to 6 or 7 now) is that the worst possible ending is in fact the correct one for the story.

The chaos rating in Dishonored is not actually a good/evil moral measure at all. It is a measure of the state of the city.

I'm not actually sure what you are trying to ask with your "big gun" question so I feel incapable of providing an answer to it.

You see, we can argue all the time we want about how a game handles the themes and all the liberty that the game gives you in acomplish such goals, but in the end there is no real impact on those decitions, do they? the audience is still safe behind the 4th Wall and its still free to explore all the other choices they missed without repercutions.

My philosophy is that the best way to make the gamer/audience feel something about your message is when you directly threathen their agency/control over the story. Specially if by removing it, they no longer will be able to have fun anymore like it was before that paradoxical moment.

So, in order to achieve this, i have to build up the story in a way that, more or less, you have ONE chance. Like with this game:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneChance

Or this one:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AiToYuukiToKashiwamochi

And that one chance is the choice i presented in the older post. You either sacrifice your control over the story (the very unique thing that makes videogames BE games) so your avatar lives a better life on her own and from now on becomes responsible, for the first time in her life, of her own mistakes, and the story goes on without your input. Or you either take absolute control and destroy any shreed of Free Will on your avatar because "why should i let this thing get away with killing the final boss? i want the fun loot for my own pleasure"

And yes, i want that each time you play that game again up to that point, the choice you made the first time will ALWAYS be repeated over and over and over. The change you made the first time is permanent so if you didnt think carefully about it before, then its too late.

Spoiler

Press X to erase Free Will

 

[DioWallachia]

DISHONOURED. DISHONOURED. DISHONOURED.

Sorry, but I want to be allowed to blithely murder people and get the good ending. It takes a lot of the fun out when you can't murder.

Problem subscriptism? maybe this video will help you reignite the flames of murder.

 

[DioWallachia]

i love my stealth games, in games like alpha protocol and human revolution i naturally gravitate towards non lethal takedowns, etc yet i dont know what it is about dishonoured but the way they gave you all these unique toys to play with then said you cant use them annoyed me like no other game has and i cant work out why

Dont you have Bioshock flashbacks by any chance (even if it isnt a stealth game)?

 

[DioWallachia]

What, an orc with a two-handed weapon that runs with the Companions, but slaughters friendly NPCs where possible to power a stupid weapon that's useless to him, isn't averse to a bit of Thieve's Guild where it benefits the story, and will eat a person for a ring he'll never equip, doesn't take any s*** from anyone but will also go along with whimsical things and fetch people's bloody bread rolls or whatever, acts with honour but steals from shops, and would love to go to Sovngard but is going to be bound to several different Daedra instead when he dies? Ridiculous.

And that is why i firmly believe that an Eldricht Abomination from a Lovecraft story would be a fitting protagonist to your description. After all, they are beyond good and evil and comprehention so its AOK to act in such an unusual way.

Press X to Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Of course, Spec Ops didn't advertise the glory of shooting. It advertised the negative elements of war, and that there were no right choices, and so on.

 

[snave]

? I don't recall Deus Ex 1 or Human revolution punishing you for mass murder by changing the ending...

It didn't so much change the ending as it altered one line out of Jensen's final monologue, depending on how aggressive you'd been. Being confrontational makes Jensen ultimately realize that being cruel or callous may have informed his final decision. It's not so much a condemnation as a sort of realization on his part - even though you might be tempted to interpret it as regret on his part.

It's not punishment, but it's taking your actions into consideration. I know the game's ending structure gets a lot of flak thanks to Mass Effect 3's own endings, but it was honestly the only way they could've ended the game satisfactorily.

<youtube=vHvTI9l5Xj0>

I actually felt Deus Ex's ending was pretty much a shining example of how multiple endings should be done, voiceover and decision-wise. I am correct in assuming that if you kill off various plot centric characters, you're limited to following only Eliza's advice at the very end, right?

My issue with the ending was strictly the visuals. They could have done something unique for each of the four core endings, instead they contacted Getty Images. Seriously, unless you're a 10-year old kid, you've seen these particular images and know the context; they just don't fit. Something more akin to the intro was deserved, where the live action parts were actually filtered to appear CGI that matched the game's aesthetic. I mean, heck, there wasn't even a single golden triangle to be seen! Eliza's ending in particular could have been done artistically with just a stage flythrough, slow motion and a cut to black.

I know they were pressed for time at the end, but these were something that really could have been outsourced. Just use the same guys that did up the intro.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I am correct in assuming that if you kill off various plot centric characters, you're limited to following only Eliza's advice at the very end, right?

My issue with the ending was strictly the visuals. They could have done something unique for each of the four core endings, instead they contacted Getty Images.

I don't exactly know, seeing as I haven't tried to kill central characters outside of the Tyrants. That would make sense, though. As for the ending, I figure it's mostly a case of the studio being pressed for time. The game's entire tone shifts late into the Hengsha chapter, and you can pretty much feel they had more involved endings planned - maybe with specific gameplay sequences for each, à la Deus Ex 1 - but with this being an ambitious project, they had to trim the fat.

I don't really mind, though. The stock photos set the mood, and all you have to do is listen to Jensen. What's onscreen isn't exactly important.

 

[DioWallachia]

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.

Of course, Spec Ops didn't advertise the glory of shooting. It advertised the negative elements of war, and that there were no right choices, and so on.

Seems so counter productive, isnt it? that game is one of those where you kinda NEED to know the shit their are ripping appart with their deconstruction. Imagine trying to read a deconstruction of Detective Fiction like "Death and the Compass" without knowing how the genre works in the first place, you cant fully apreciate the genius without that knowledge.

Take for example the words of Yahtzee on Spec Ops in his Extra Puctuation article: "It wasn't even the fact that it was unwittingly committed by the protagonist and by extension me. No, the most horrifying part of it was remembering what had been going through my mind at the time. Seeing all those white blobs and thinking "Oh boy! This'll be just like getting three in one shot in Missile Command or something. Bombs away! I'm the best at shooters!" When the truth about what I'd done became clear, that was what made me feel sick. Not the gore, not the darkness in Walker, but the darkness in me. This, Roger Ebert, is how videogames can be profound."

To me, in order to get yourself in that mentality, you kinda need to have played those "spot the white dots" moments on COD and similar games that want to mask the horror of war with a vague sense of fun.

So logically, if the developers lied the audience about what the game is about with the trailers and such (just like how the very few hours of the game does) they would have gathered more people that are lovers of COD and Battlefield, just so they can be surpriced when shit gets real.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

What, an orc with a two-handed weapon that runs with the Companions, but slaughters friendly NPCs where possible to power a stupid weapon that's useless to him, isn't averse to a bit of Thieve's Guild where it benefits the story, and will eat a person for a ring he'll never equip, doesn't take any s*** from anyone but will also go along with whimsical things and fetch people's bloody bread rolls or whatever, acts with honour but steals from shops, and would love to go to Sovngard but is going to be bound to several different Daedra instead when he dies? Ridiculous.

And that is why i firmly believe that an Eldricht Abomination from a Lovecraft story would be a fitting protagonist to your description. After all, they are beyond good and evil and comprehention so its AOK to act in such an unusual way.

Press X to Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

That's just...so insightful and useful. I will name my next character R'lyeh and play the game as I normally would, except with the bonus of keeping in character constantly. If possible, I will utilise items that confuse/disorientate my enemies and strike fear, and switch weapons and armour randomly for every encounter. Much appreciated bestower of wisdom.

 

[Mikejames]

Remember Silent Hill 2 where you can get the ----- ending for ------ at the ------.

I actually liked some of the ways they affected the ending.

Spoiler

Staying to listen to Mary's last words to James was a cleverly subtle way to imply things about his mentality. Then again, I did get the tragic ending because I thought Angela's knife would be a useful tool in some circumstances...

The paragon/renegade bar was a persuasion system and a measure of personality strength, if you are paragon of truth and justice you are the kind of person able to talk down others, if you are a scary mother you... get to yell at people (i know, it's very stupid).
If you are neither... Again there is no point in having a persuasion system if it never fails.

I think the problem with that was how the game professed dealing with morally gray areas, where subjective views on what's right are ultimately labeled paragon or renegade.

While playing a morally upright person I may aim be polite but still agree with a Renegade point of view; unfortunately this kind of adaptation hurts my ability to persuade people for some reason.

 

[Sacman]

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.

Well obviously someone has never beaten Deus Ex... considering, it doesn;t matter a whole lot when you murder tons of people... your choice when it comes to tactical approach only ever changes character relations, like whether or not your brother likes you... and it can do things like have your boss with hold money from you at the beginning of the game... but that's only really if you go specifically against the objective, or cock it up... the game never straddles you with stupid moral choice... the ending is based completely on how you handle fighting the final boss, to complete one of the objectives given to you by different characters in the game... which can all be achieved different ways, to of course cradle as many play styles as possible... even than, none of the endings are good... you either, destroy society, become god, or join the Illuminati to rule the world from behind the scenes... I don;t see the good anywhere, and that's the point... the game is mature enough to understand subjective grey areas and that there is never a simple solution to a complex problem, leaving it up to the player to decide whether or not there actions were justified, to accomplish the objective... so the game never judges the player... and there really isn;t a golden ending... unless you count the Dance Party ending...<.<


Now, I don;t remember the ending to System Shock 2... but I do remember that it certainly doesn;t have a moral choice system, and murdering things is pretty much expected, seeing as how there are no nonlethal options, or stealth... I suppose you could make an argument that it's trying to make a statement regarding survival or something like that... but it's far from a perfectly formed theme... the only thing that mattered were character skills to progress the story, seeing as how it had this nasty habit of not letting you progress if you haven;t had so many point in hacking or cooking or waste management or whatever... even that has little to do with actual gameplay, just random bullshit on the side... like it expects you to have points in research...<.<

OT: anything with a moral choice system really... it's why I found Fallout 3 basically unplayable... because it forced this arbitrary set of morals down my choice and basically forced me with an arm bar to do the right thing all the time... you know killing role playing and destroying my ability to become invested in the universe... and other than Kotor2... I can;t think of a single game with a moral choice system that wouldn't have been better without it...<.<

 

[ikoian]

Well, with things like a non-lethal approach or stealth options,it really takes a certain kind of player to like those things, such is why usually games these days with stealth just have it as an option rather than focus the game around it.

 

[Warachia]

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.

Not at all, if you are on the easier difficulties you can always get everyone to calm down and choose any choice you want no matter what you do, the only exception is if you finish the rivals as soon as possible without doing anything else.

 

[el_kabong]

Paladins in the Dungeons and Dragons (prior to 4E) / Pathfinder systems. Their only alignment is Lawful Good. Not only that, but if you give into evil at any point, you can lose your abilities and essentially become a shitty fighter.

 

[DioWallachia]

SNIP

You do realize that i mentioned Deus Ex and SS2 as an EXAMPLE of the genre Action RPG and nothing else? i didnt say that those were examples of what the post is about.

 

[DioWallachia]

Well, with things like a non-lethal approach or stealth options,it really takes a certain kind of player to like those things, such is why usually games these days with stealth just have it as an option rather than focus the game around it.

I dont consider stealth to be inferior to, say, having the powers of The Great Old Ones to posses people so they can commit suicide attacks for me while chanting "IA IA IA CTHULHU FHTANG!!". Its just when the game favors one gameplay over the other just to drive a point that the narrative is trying to tell. My curiosity compels me to ask if those kind of decitions ever make the players agree with such decition, or they feel that its adds nothing but more tediousness to a task that COULD have been done MY way if i so choose but now the game feels like depowering me for some flincy statement about "Power corrupts, so dont make DINOMITE Rats. That would be terrible"

If people could countribute examples where they trully feels that going on a route that makes your gameplay suck more, just for the sake of the plot/character/theme, then i would be gratefull.

 

[babinro]

Every moral choice game I've ever played.
They expect moral extremes allowing for very minimal deviation in order to get the expected best ending.

Games that associate endings based on time played forcing you to rush/skip content.

 

[Legion]

I think the problem with that was how the game professed dealing with morally gray areas, where subjective views on what's right are ultimately labeled paragon or renegade.

While playing a morally upright person I may aim be polite but still agree with a Renegade point of view; unfortunately this kind of adaptation hurts my ability to persuade people for some reason.

That is the issue really. The game lumps everything into two subjective categories.

I like playing a character who is good, but a bit of a bastard. They do the right thing, but do not always act nice when doing it. This means that I'd want to Paragon the good choices, but Renegade the relevant dialogue. At the same time, I am normally nice to the people I like, and unpleasant to those that I do not, but the game cannot tell the difference.

This normally tends to mean that I have half full bars of both which is basically worthless.

 

[Woodsey]

assassin's creed... so what if your ancestors didnt kill civilians air assassinations are the fastest way to jump off a building

You can use the grab button to land on top of people and break your fall without killing them. Totally worth it for the mild look of irritation they give you mere seconds after crashing their skull into the ground, too.