Why Do Branching Storylines Never Deliver on Their Promises?

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

Why Do Branching Storylines Never Deliver on Their Promises?

Could we perhaps make some kind of official universal agreement to the effect that the whole 'branching path' thing in triple-A story-driven games never really delivers the promised experience?

Read Full Article

 

[Quellist]

I think Alpha Protocol came as close to nailing it as you can. Different bosses, different outcomes, the ability to completely avoid the toughest fight in the game by doing your research, Characters/factions you could kill, ally with or basically ignore.

It was far from perfect but i felt my choices shaped the storyline somewhat

 

[K12]

Part of me thinks that the fake-out "your choice matters" thing is fine if it successfully makes you feel responsible and more invested in the events of the story. Some games manage to do that stuff reasonably well, even though a choice might only have temporary effects or even no effect other than how you're made to feel about the situation.

For example in the Walking Dead episode 2 you have a "do I kill this bitten person or not" choice except if you say no or hesitate another character will immediately leap in and kill him anyway. The same outcome "the guy dies" happens in both instances but you feel differently about the characters involved.

It's totally fair to complain that this isn't really a branching story though and I think with big cutscenes and AAA production values it'll always be impossible to do anything other than token nods to branching storytelling for the sake of marketing.

 

[Nazrel]

Ogre Tactics: Let us cling together, was one of the best games for the impact of actions and branching narratives, and it originally came out in the mid 90's on the SNES.(They did release a remake for the PSP.)

The Banner Saga did a decent job to (at least as far as the first installment is concerned, not in a position to judge the second part.)

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Same with branching conversations. All you have to do is look at the realities of trying to create a dynamic, branching, believable environment and what resources that all requires. It is far too much for how little will be averagely consumed by the "normal" gamer. It is a pipe dream that even if it does get realised fully (with enough time), it will never be as appreciated as the work put into it could justify. Tis unfortunables for now.
Tales from the borderlands had a pretty interesting setup for its' endng which really did bring home the many tolls of your previous decisions in an almost impeccable manner. But it is a special case so far, worthy of more study, hopefully. Though some decisions were frustrating when they didn't come with extra dialogue options to explain my reasoning to the NPCs before they got all judgey on me with their damn assumptions.

 

[Pyrian]

The Banner Saga did a decent job to...

Banner Saga definitely has consequences (perhaps too much, lol), but it doesn't branch narrative for more than a few screens at a time. Some of the re-connecting branches come off very forced, IMO. It's annoying when the particularly difficult accomplishments are simply rolled back right afterwards.

 

[Semcat]

The closest example that I can think of that had a branching storyline (choose your own adventure type) is Guardian Heroes. At the end of most stages or before some boss fights you had to choose between 3 to 5 options, these choices would determine what bosses you fought, and which of the five different endings you got.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

What you ask Jaime Reyes to do in Deus Ex affects whether or not he shows up later in France

I had no idea Blue Beetle showed up in Deus Ex

 

[Nazrel]

The Banner Saga did a decent job to...

Banner Saga definitely has consequences (perhaps too much, lol), but it doesn't branch narrative for more than a few screens at a time. Some of the re-connecting branches come off very forced, IMO. It's annoying when the particularly difficult accomplishments are simply rolled back right afterwards.

You have some pretty big ones in relation to who lives, who dies, and who joins you, which in turn impacts future events, and I'm not sure the full scope of the impact of some of the actions is felt yet.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rolling back accomplishments.

 

[loa]

Why the hell is optional content synonymous with "content most people will never see"?
That's replayability.

Alternate routes in starfox make you want to re-play it to find out how to get on them.
Murdering toriel in undertale and then finding out there is a way to prevent that makes you want to re-play to try and do that and so does finding out that random enemy encounters are finite and something will happen if you deplete them.
Finding out you can talk yourself out of pretty much everything makes you want to re-play planescape torment after murdering everything.
Binding of isaac wouldn't be anywhere close to what it is if every pickup and all level layouts were pre-determined and if you had already seen every pickup in the game after completing it.

Why is linearity desired and good but branching content is so scary?
Shouldn't it be the other way around, scary that the player will just throw away the game and never touch it again after finishing it 1 time because there's nothing left for them to do?

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I think Stories - The Path of Destinies does branching story nice.
But then if you consider the multiple playthroughs as a single game, you get a nice looping story. The game is designed in a way to force the player to finish it multiple times to get a fuller experience. There are 25, I believe, different endings. Almost all are negative and don't change too drastically, but since beating the game once takes maybe 2 hours tops, all the different endings accumulate into a nice story.

And what's up with optional content being considered "content that the player may not experience"? What's with that bullshit? Yes, if you rush to the end and don't do anything else you will miss it out, but that's your own damn fault for being stupid and not enjoying the game. It's replayability. If the game is well designed with multiple playthroughs in mind, it will be engaging to play several times and not just once. Morrowind can be beating in 3 minutes and 14 freaking seconds. OH MY FUCKING GOD! WHAT A SHITTY GAME I MISSED OUT ON SO MUCH CONTENT!

And "missing out on content" is why drives another thing that annoys me. People playing completionist in RPG games. It's a stupid concept and the games are ruined because the devs are too scared to tell those people to fuck off. You're not roleplaying in that case. You're doing everything. That's why you can become the leader of every fucking guild in Skyrim in a single playthrought. Mage, Thieve, Brooderhood... everything. One character.
Try doing that in Morrowind. Yes, again that game. The game where your choices actually mattered and where joining and advancing in one guild can permanently make a faction enemies and prevent you from ever joining or talking with some people. Is that missed out content? Yes, if you don't play again. But that's the point of RPG games. You play a role. Now I'm playing a thief, the next character is a mage. The one after that is a warrior. Non of my character is a Gary Stu who can do literally everything like many people seem to play RPG games.
Yes, you're playing the game wrong. And because developer pander to you you ruined the RPG genre. At least the old series.

 

[Darth_Payn]

It sounds to me like allowing branching storylines in games means programming the equivalent of however many games for each possible branch of the finished product. Programming for one linear story is enough of a headache.

 

[sXeth]

Why the hell is optional content synonymous with "content most people will never see"?
That's replayability.

Alternate routes in starfox make you want to re-play it to find out how to get on them.
Murdering toriel in undertale and then finding out there is a way to prevent that makes you want to re-play to try and do that and so does finding out that random enemy encounters are finite and something will happen if you deplete them.
Finding out you can talk yourself out of pretty much everything makes you want to re-play planescape torment after murdering everything.
Binding of isaac wouldn't be anywhere close to what it is if every pickup and all level layouts were pre-determined and if you had already seen every pickup in the game after completing it.

Why is linearity desired and good but branching content is so scary?
Shouldn't it be the other way around, scary that the player will just throw away the game and never touch it again after finishing it 1 time because there's nothing left for them to do?

Starfox is only about half an hour of content in a shot-through though, with minimal story overhead to try and weave in. Alternate routes just kind of change a few bosses and stages around, they don't alter the narrative.

I got maybe an hour into the second go at Undertale before being bored because the content was very heavily samey. Genocide might give a bit of fresh on the gameplay side, but the monotony of hunting down the encounters in a (presumably) third slog through is about as appetizing as collecting all the flags in Assassins Creed to me.

Isaac - See Starfox.

Torment's a bit more versatile, but ultimately again, the story doesn't alter significantly until the endpoint, and the gameplay being awful has generally kept me getting far in a rerun of it.


If we're comparing it with Choose Your Own adventure books, the obvious sort of inspiration, I remember that most of them had 2-4 full paths in them. Games seem to stick to one, and barring minor differences in approach (talking vs fighting) or attitude (positive do gooder vs cartoon bad dude, maybe with a cynical in-betweener), don't ever really seem to change the fundamental narrative. The same people will still die, in the same ways, maybe delayed by a few minutes. I remember points in the Walking Dead where they clearly forgot (despite the X Will Remember note) previous choices, because characters started being jerks to me even though I hadn't done whatever thing they were upset about (which still happened, just at the hands of someone else or arbitrary fortune)

 

[Pyrian]

The Banner Saga did a decent job to...

Banner Saga definitely has consequences (perhaps too much, lol), but it doesn't branch narrative for more than a few screens at a time. Some of the re-connecting branches come off very forced, IMO. It's annoying when the particularly difficult accomplishments are simply rolled back right afterwards.

You have some pretty big ones in relation to who lives, who dies, and who joins you, which in turn impacts future events...

It's really easy to lose a lot of characters, but aside from a few snippets of dialog it doesn't impact future events at all.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rolling back accomplishments.

Spoiler

We got inside the walls! We still gotta run. We wrecked the bridge! Oh, they went around.

 

[BrawlMan]

Why Do Branching Storylines Never Deliver on Their Promises?

Could we perhaps make some kind of official universal agreement to the effect that the whole 'branching path' thing in triple-A story-driven games never really delivers the promised experience?

Read Full Article

The only games with branching story lines that I played is RE1/Remake (canonically everyone survives anyway), Eternal Darkness (you're required to do all three to get the true ending), and Guardian Heroes, a brawler that did that idea better back in 1995. And even then the GBA sequel only made the first ending you're most likely to get in the original canon (the one where the party joins the Skyborn). The sequel was mediocre, so most fans like to ignore it, including me.

 

[Drakmorg]

Ogre Tactics: Let us cling together, was one of the best games for the impact of actions and branching narratives, and it originally came out in the mid 90's on the SNES.(They did release a remake for the PSP.)

Wow, I'm surprised someone beat me to this.

But yeah, this game was the first thing that came to mind when I tried to think of games where you make decisions that actually radically affect the story, since, depending on your decisions, the main character's position, who they're allied with, and even their goals can all change immensely.

 

[RanceJustice]

Seems a few people beat me to some of the best examples - Ogre Battle / Tactics Ogre, JRPGs from the SNES/PS1 era that offered huge depth based upon what you did and who you friended/went against etc. I can't believe that another great JRPG has been missed - Chrono Trigger! Talk about branching storylines and endings! There are some other JRPG games, such as the Agarest series that have some branching storylines (5 generations, things differ depending on who you marry etc).

On the Western and more recent offerings, Morrowind, DeusEx (all of them), and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines all had some branching story paths based on your choice, as did the Mass Effect Series. However, the very best recent, "cinematic, Western" game I can think of that did this best of all is Alpha Protocol.

If you haven't played Alpha Protocol, it is pretty much truly a "Spy movie you control". There are TONS and tons of factors that change the story in significant ways. From the start you pick your starting skils/class which affects how people see you (Were you a soldier? Spy? Worked in the tech department? Fresh recruit? There's even a secret class that may unlock....). Every conversation has at least 3 replies named after the 3 "JB" spies - James Bond (suave, flirty, and snarky), Jason Borne (professional and to the point) and Jack Bauer (Aggressive, demanding, controlling -TELL ME WHERE THE FUCKING BOMB IS OR I RIP OFF YOUR LEFT TESTICLE heh), plus sometimes a "special" 4th option. Everyone you speak to has a faction system, ranging from -10 hating you to +10 loving you, and favors certain reply styles - though they aren't 1 dimensional where you can just keep hitting the same reply every time and it will work, as they have their own (often hidden) motivations that will require thoughtful communication to help, hinder, or unveil. Positive experiences with some will alienate others. The way you play the game, with stealth or going loud, letting certain people go or bringing them in etc.. all impacts things as well even WAY down the line. Hell, there's a certain (some say the hardest boss in the game) you can not even have to fight if you play your cards right and its hard to do so (ie you have to perfect stealth a certain level without even using tranq darts or non lethal takedowns and thats only PART of getting his respect). Each person, enemy or friend has a file you can complete to learn about them, including a "secret dossier" which can often be used for a major gambit, but you can't get all of them for everyone in a single playthrough.

The only downside to the game is the somewhat cumbersome control mechanics (ie you can't drag bodies) and was originally buggy (Obsidian developed I think, Sega produced), but it is an amazing example of a story based game that should be the benchmark for interactive, meaningful choice and depth based storytelling.

 

[Nazrel]

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rolling back accomplishments.

Spoiler

We got inside the walls! We still gotta run. We wrecked the bridge! Oh, they went around.

Oh, those.

It seemed obvious they'd only gain you a moments respite.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Most games that say they do have branching storylines, do branch. But the branches all form back on the one ending.