votemarvel said:
The Batman Arkham games do it to an extent.
You are encouraged to avoid conflict, take people out from the shadows etc. Then the game throws you into massive unavoidable brawls.
I wouldn't say they penalize you. Now, I know you said "to an extent", but that would imply they don't do it on as large a scale or something along those lines rather than just locking you off to certain gameplay tactics. The thing is the Arkham games have clear stealth gameplay and clear pure combat gameplay versus focus on one and a vague semblance of another like other similar games might have.
The reason
Asylum is often voted as a favorite of the franchise is because the atmosphere, seeming dominance of stealth areas, and lack of relative gameplay versatility in pure combat over the sequel and prequel made it feel like more of a stealth game. It also helped that Arkham's stealth approach is JUST fresh enough to stick in people's minds over the combat system, which while fun and somewhat fresh in its own right still feels more familiar in relation to other games over the stealth gameplay, if you ask me anyway. Clearly, pure combat existed and it was showcased plenty, but for people who lean towards preferring stealth they like being reminded that they're stealthing, not fighting.
Arkham City, in going open world and expanding gameplay versatility (mostly pure combat wise) with less of the creepy atmosphere, was too much of a reminder that, yes, pure combat exists in the Arkham franchise.
The thing about the franchise is the only situations you can stealth AND/OR fight normally, for the most part, are in the open areas of the overall world map. If you're in a building or, even, sometimes, in a part of the larger world map that was scripted a certain way to make the other gameplay option impractical, the game locks you off. Gargoyles, small enclosed area? Stealth. Though you can still punch your way through if you hide fast enough afterwards, at least. I did that sometimes when I felt like mixing it up or wanted to see if it would help shave off some of my time. It was part of what I called my...
aggressive stealth strategy. Anyway, go through a door or see a clear sign you're going to get ambushed or something along those lines? You have to fight. They're aware of you, so stealth is not an option.
I don't think any of the games actively encouraged you to do what you're saying. There's no rewards for approaching otherwise, no signs. It's not as extreme as I think the games that were intended for this thread. The closest thing the games do is constrict your gameplay options depending on environment and maybe an occasional suggestion from Batman or a side character that you should approach the people in the next room a certain way. I wouldn't say there is any active encouragement especially considering in the very first game, after the interactive intro, the first thing you do is, not stealth, but punch goons. For it to encourage avoidance of conflict, I don't think it would make you start off brawling right at the start.
Sorry for the nitpicking and the rambling. I couldn't help myself. I love the Arkham games and got a lot to say about them.
Happyninja42 said:
Unkillable Cat said:
RPG's tend to punish you for playing the evil routes. Its not quite as bad as it once was but the options can be along the lines of:
You have rescued the baby, do you?
Ensure the babies home environment is a beacon of virtue and return him to his family - receive a reward (good)
Give the child back, hint that you may want a bigger payment - Better reward sometimes (neutral)
EAT THE BABY - no reward (evil)
Oh come on, there's a reward for eating the baby, you got a free meal! xD
That reminds me when I used to play
KOTOR. More often than not, to get light side points, you had to get all morally high and mighty and say how it's not about the reward, but about your noble Jediness encouraging you to help people. Sometimes, if you didn't object to the reward, accepted it passively, you'd still get light side points for just helping someone out, but more often than not that was a neutral option that got you nothing besides the XP you got for beating off attackers or whatever it was you just did. And, of course, the evil option just involved being really insulting or physically aggressive, often from the start, though sometimes you could offer to do something good and then be evil about it and come back and brag about your evilness like your example. But, god forbid you "kick the dog" when interacting with NPCs not important to the main story. I mean, sure, you could kill them once in a while or brag to one about how you doomed her treasured robot companion to a terrible demise, a robot companion who was the last reminder of her husband and his tragic death, but we all know kicking the dog is much worse. The dead baby contributed to your physical health and those NPCs probably had those things coming. But, the dog!?!?!
