Playing Favorites in Wolfenstein's Semi-Branching Story

[XDSkyFreak]

Well ... yahtzee compliments the story of witcher there at the end. So he finaly gave it a chance then?

I won't mince words: Witcher 1 dragged alot and was clunky, but by the end it tied everything toghether and made your choices matter. Witcher 2 took that to the next level with it's story and how everything changes based on only 2 choices, one in Act 1 and the second in Act 3. Plus the overall grey murky morals of the world of witcher and how there was no right answer to anything.

I honestly don't get why people complain about the combat in witcher 2 ... it's functional. It does it's job nicely. The story is what matters in witcher, not the combat. But hey: Witcher 3 promises a better combat system and actual unique fights at the end of monster hunts. So ... maybe witcher 3 is the one Yahtzee final gives a positive review for?

 

[SiskoBlue]

The best "morality" system I ever found was Alpha Protocol. That was a good game well and truly fucked by development restrictions, namely Obsidian landing the big money Fallout 3 New Vegas contract and abandoning it.

Get past the generic first act of prolonged tutorial and dodgey MGS/Splinter Cell section in Afghanistan and the game completely changes (sadly the game mechanics felt as old as the original Syphon Filter, funtional, and sometimes fun but a bit ridiculous).

Back on point. That had 3 dialogue types, the 3 JBs; James Bond Suave, Jason Bourne Professional, or Jack Bauer violent nutcase. The thing is, it wasn't the case that you stuck with one personality type, it was contextual to who you were talking to, and even then depending on the question. Each NPC had a 0-10 scale of liking you or disliking you. That's one variable.

The also had gameplay effecting story, did you kill "innocent" Americans in two embassy missions? And you could choose handlers. The efficient, but enigmatic german with quality gear, or the ridiculous Russian Bridget Nielsen character with bigger guns (metaphorically as well). Also, the order in which areas and missions you tackled.

Depending on all these factors, whole storylines could be missed (a love interest turns out to be the assassin you chased in one area and I didn't have a clue until the second playthrough). Characters lived or died as a consequence, missions changed, some not even being available, depending on your actions. And dialogue changed dramatically in sections.

The dialogue and acting was typically dull, or ridiculous. The plot was a Tom Clancy rip-off. The gameplay was fine but some parts made it ridiculous (you could go invisible for 5 seconds and work right up to someone and kill them and no one would notice??), but I've never played a game with better, and more varied branching narrative or continuity. It's clear a lot of effort (& money) went into the game from some people but wasn't followed through so it bombed and hid the real gem. If it had done better Mass Effect might have had a contender and thought better of their cop-out method "Here's a moral choice! It makes zero difference to gameplay, or levels, but puts a different colour on the story".

I want to Alpha Protocol again, excuse me...

 

[Mike Fang]

"If you're going to shit on something, better to be firm than squirty." Oh God, I'm gonna have to remember that one.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I know Yahtzee was rather critical towards it, but personally I thought Dishonored handled the concept of multiple endings in a very interesting way. I loved how that triggering the "good" or "evil" endings in that game was the result of the way you've been playing the whole game as opposed to just a few select choices in certain situations.

Problem is getting the good ending required you to play in an unfun manner over the entire game, paranoid about not killing people.

You can still get the good ending while killing people here and there.

Did you know that while going through the game the first time? The game explicitly tells you killing people is bad and accrues a resource that makes bad things happen. So without out-of-game knowledge about how much leeway you have, you are paranoid about killing anyone.

 

[Tomstonemale]

I know Yahtzee was rather critical towards it, but personally I thought Dishonored handled the concept of multiple endings in a very interesting way. I loved how that triggering the "good" or "evil" endings in that game was the result of the way you've been playing the whole game as opposed to just a few select choices in certain situations.

Problem is getting the good ending required you to play in an unfun manner over the entire game, paranoid about not killing people.

You can still get the good ending while killing people here and there.

Did you know that while going through the game the first time? The game explicitly tells you killing people is bad and accrues a resource that makes bad things happen. So without out-of-game knowledge about how much leeway you have, you are paranoid about killing anyone.

That's still you taking the game too seriously. I never killed anyone until i met with Daud's gang (and i killed all of them)and i still got the good ending. Not that it was a great ending or anything (really meh to be honest). Nevertheless, it was fun to play the non-lethal way for the most part of the game.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I know Yahtzee was rather critical towards it, but personally I thought Dishonored handled the concept of multiple endings in a very interesting way. I loved how that triggering the "good" or "evil" endings in that game was the result of the way you've been playing the whole game as opposed to just a few select choices in certain situations.

Problem is getting the good ending required you to play in an unfun manner over the entire game, paranoid about not killing people.

You can still get the good ending while killing people here and there.

Did you know that while going through the game the first time? The game explicitly tells you killing people is bad and accrues a resource that makes bad things happen. So without out-of-game knowledge about how much leeway you have, you are paranoid about killing anyone.

That's still you taking the game too seriously. I never killed anyone until i met with Daud's gang (and i killed all of them)and i still got the good ending. Not that it was a great ending or anything (really meh to be honest). Nevertheless, it was fun to play the non-lethal way for the most part of the game.

Yes, I know you have leeway. But you don't know how much you have and the game makes vague threats about what will happen if you kill. When you threaten that you won't get the best ending that sends a strong message to the player.

Coincidentally I too went "Fuck it!" and killing people about the time you got to Daud's gang. My enjoyment of the game skyrocketed once I no longer had to slowly choke everyone.