This thread is meant to discuss how well the two can coexist, with perhaps some examples of how it’s already been done effectively or not so much.
I think ideally there is a way of combining the two effectively, but it usually seems they are at odds at least occasionally because of what the narrative requires.
I think the two can coexist quite well, but it does require an actual effort on the part of the game designers to sit back for a second and actually think about what types of actions players might want to do, for any given situation, and try and accommodate those options. Obviously they can only code so many variables for choice, but in my opinion, as long as at least some effort has been given, to not only give the player agency, but have that agency actually MATTER, then I think it's a good game, in regards to the metric of agency at least.
For a good example that just came to mind, was the DLC for Deus Ex: Human Revolution : The Missing Link. First off, that game offered the player a lot of agency in the design, even down to letting the player choose to totally fuck up in the opening sequence, by ignoring your boss telling you that a hostage situation was going on. Because players often behave thinking that nothing in the game will progress, until they trigger it (which to be fair, is often the case), plenty of them will ignore prompts to "get to the choppa! we have hostages to save!" because they want to be nosy and explore the central office they just loaded into. Well, the devs of Deus Ex, were clever little buggers, and actually thought about that. So they let that choice actually have impact. If you take too long, the hostages die, and your boss is pissed. You had multiple ways to resolve any objective the game presented, and they were pretty good about having those choices matter later. With characters you spare, or talk around from a bad situation, coming back later to help you if you helped them.
But the Missing Link example that I personally love, is where you are given a choice between 2 groups of people to save. There is a guy, telling you that the facility is filling up with poisonous gas, and you can only shunt the flow of gas away from one room or the other. And the person tells you "you must choose, who lives, and who dies." Well, the devs put in another option, but they don't really broadcast it.
There is a third option, where you can find the actual device dispensing the gas, and shut it down at the source, thus saving everyone. You even get an achievement for this, and the name of it implies that they knew someone would try and defy the guy on the radio, and try to save everyone.
I think that game, tried really hard to provide enough different options for a player, so that anyone could proceed for each mission, in as many ways as feasible.
The problem with this, is it does put a lot more work on the devs, to code so many variables. It might mean alternate dialogue options for each choice, which means more voice work for the actors, and larger files to accommodate all the different dialogue trees, and more coding for accounting for npc's being alive/dead/happy/angry/etc. And a lot of devs simply don't have the time/budget/resources/staff to pull that off effectively. They try, but they don't always succeed.
I think the key thing, is how the game is presented. If the framing of the game, when they are introducing all the different elements of the primary gaming loop, imply that there is player agency, then they should make a concerted effort to actually account for that agency in the player. If they say you have choice, but that choice doesn't actually exist, and it's really just railroading you down a single narrative thread, then that is bad design. It's fine if you want to have the narrative be singular in nature, but don't tell me upfront that I can choose how to proceed, and then basically lie about it.
An example of a good game that doesn't have player agency, is Control. You are on a very linear path with that game. The dialogue is set in stone, you don't change how any objective is completed. The only real choice you have is in what order you handle a lot of the missions. But the end result, for everyone playing that game, is the same. And that's fine, because it's never really established that the game revolves around you having choice in the outcomes. You are playing a story, that's it.
I personally prefer games that allow for agency, as I find that the route I like to play games, will often deviate from some of the more typical paths a game is designed to take. But I can appreciate that this does make the task of making the game, much more difficult. So for me, as long as they aren't being contradictory about the difference in their design, versus presentation, I'm usually ok with a lot of, or lack of, agency.
