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.
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).
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.
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.