Perhaps I'm not giving the writers enough credit and this is supposed to be a social commentary on the consequences of greed in a cyberpunk universe however I don't think these woke writers are capable of that much subtlety. It feels like the choice matter games are all fake, at the end of the day you can't just say no and walk or fight out of a situation which would hugely impress me.
To posit a scenario that I would have written for a story like this. I would have given the player an entire option to ditch the chip and not insert it into your brain. That would have been really interesting, you could even make it the way more difficult option to survive through because of all the factions wanting you dead. However, you'd still have the chip generally on hand and you wouldn't need to worry about terminal illness. Carrying the chip around would be like having a live grenade in your pocket.
I mean the far cry writer manage to keep the option in their iteration of walking away, so the standard should not be that high.
I mean the far cry writer manage to keep the option in their iteration of walking away, so the standard should not be that high.
I've just been looking at spoilers for Phantom Liberty. Funnily enough, it looks like it actually does something similar to Far Cry 4, where you can intentionally finish the story right at the beginning. In the opening mission, you can sit back, let the President of the NUSA die instead of rushing to save her, and the story ends then and there with the implication that it was probably for the best that you didn't get involved.
Little known?, its been talked alot about it, It had its moments sure, but i still can not get over the section where you are forced to do some stuff in order to progress the plot. (see the phosphorus part)
A game that is now delisted and cannot be gotten official anymore (bloody copyright) Alpha Protocol is suppose to have good options in its story flow chart.
If you have options based on morality, you can't force someone to do them to progress the game, like you said.
Maybe if you're in a scifi or fantasy setting where the action/consequences are not immediately obvious by the name, and you have it happen very early so that in the future when given the option you can choose whether or not too, but otherwise it's a subversive, trashy strategy that just makes me hate you for forcing me to do it.
There were no choices. The game gives you two mututally exclusive options and then berates you for not knowing the second one exists because in a video game you've been conditioned to not expect it. Except when it gives you no option at all and still berates you.
It also considers the "evil" choice to be shooting the civilians who just chased down, beat, and then lynched your comrade. Who you had to listen to his horrific and terrifying final moments over the radio.
But you are still the "bad guy" for shooting them, because its only "evil" to kill people when you are White. Sand Niggers are just poor idiots who are victims of misunderstandings and circumstance! But not you, for some reason you can't claim that. You are just evil for daring to...try and help.
I mean the far cry writer manage to keep the option in their iteration of walking away, so the standard should not be that high.
What is underail
I've just been looking at spoilers for Phantom Liberty. Funnily enough, it looks like it actually does something similar to Far Cry 4, where you can intentionally finish the story right at the beginning. In the opening mission, you can sit back, let the President of the NUSA die instead of rushing to save her, and the story ends then and there with the implication that it was probably for the best that you didn't get involved.
Of course you like SO:TL. Probably the most overrated of the “video games are art” set (because Gone Home isn’t a game).
Little known?, its been talked alot about it, It had its moments sure, but i still can not get over the section where you are forced to do some stuff in order to progress the plot. (see the phosphorus part)
A game that is now delisted and cannot be gotten official anymore (bloody copyright) Alpha Protocol is suppose to have good options in its story flow chart.
I found that the line was kinda insufferable.
Feel like a hero now? Except you forced me to do this to progress the game.
I liked alpha protocol, even for all of its buggy mess.
The Line is wildly overrated. It’s baby’s first subversive video game story, wrapped in a painfully mediocre gameplay shell.
If you have options based on morality, you can't force someone to do them to progress the game, like you said.
Maybe if you're in a scifi or fantasy setting where the action/consequences are not immediately obvious by the name, and you have it happen very early so that in the future when given the option you can choose whether or not too, but otherwise it's a subversive, trashy strategy that just makes me hate you for forcing me to do it.
There were no choices. The game gives you two mututally exclusive options and then berates you for not knowing the second one exists because in a video game you've been conditioned to not expect it. Except when it gives you no option at all and still berates you.
It also considers the "evil" choice to be shooting the civilians who just chased down, beat, and then lynched your comrade. Who you had to listen to his horrific and terrifying final moments over the radio.
But you are still the "bad guy" for shooting them, because its only "evil" to kill people when you are White. Sand Niggers are just poor idiots who are victims of misunderstandings and circumstance! But not you, for some reason you can't claim that. You are just evil for daring to...try and help.