Why Do Branching Storylines Never Deliver on Their Promises?

[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

I just finished a replay of that game. What boss fight are you talking about? Brayko? Or mr "Imma sit here in my tower and spam grenades and sniper shots at you while flooding you with goons" near the end of the game?

Anyway, I DO have to concur that Alpha Protocol does a fantastic job making so many of your choices (like which missions you do in what order) all feel like they matter, whether it changes up the story a bit, or whether it just gives you a cool game-long buff that benefits you somehow.

...I also love how they really seem to have though some things through

Spoiler: ENDING SPOILERS FOR ONE ENDING

I love how (if you've impressed the villain enough) you have the option to literally agree to work with the villain, hand over the disk with all the evidence, and then at the end go "oh yeah, actually, I don't need you after all. And that disk? It's actually a bomb" *BOOM* XD

Hmm, his name if I recall is Marburgh/Marberg or something like that. Chief enforcer for the Corporate guy who interviews you in flash forwards. If you don't ally with him he sics Marburgh on you for a really tough melee fight. Except if you got a 100% dossier on Marberg you can convince him in an earlier meeting that he's being played for a fool by his boss (If I recall apparently Marberg has a history of this happening to him). So when the corporate guy tells him to kill you Marberg just walks away.

Sorry about the names, it's been a while

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Hmm, his name if I recall is Marburgh/Marberg or something like that.

Huh. I actually don't recall that. 0_o I'm pretty sure I told him to go die in a fire the first time and he didn't show up again and I was actually pretty disappointed because I wanted to cap the sumbitch in the head.

Neat.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Looking through the comments, one of the questions should be "what defines a branching game?".

Some have mentioned games such as Telltale games where the end is the same but the path to the end is different. (As an aside, if those count, then I'm submitting Star Control 2 and SWTOR's Knights of the Fallen Empire expansion as well.)

Others have defined it as having multiple endings where your choices (Binary Domain gets the nod here even though the post-credits scene is the same for all endings.) determine the end. Although, to be brutally honest, it's usually "your singular choice" determines the ending. (Chrono Trigger's new game plus endings were all pretty much a result of "When do you jump into the time gate?")

The other question is "how much are you willing to pay for a multiple path/ending game?". Having fully voiced/animated/programed/etc paths and endings are far more expensive than the Chrono Trigger games where it was a single unvoiced cutscene recycling in-game elements as the different ending. Gamers are notorious for having a long list of demands but tightening up when it comes time to pay for such demands. With AAA gaming becoming increasingly unsustainable, the demands for branching seem more suited to non-AAA games. Flash games, as an example, are an example of a genre that has had many games with true branching paths because you don't have to pay a building full of employees to make those games.

 

[The Eupho Guy_v1legacy]

Morrowind was is the epitome of this problem. You have to choose between one of three houses to progress. Which one should you choose? Wrong question because the story line ends up the same so it's irrelevant. I find it funny that Yahtzee says that Witcher 3 had branching choices. There was only about 5 choice in the whole game and two affected the ending. The other three gave a slideshow of the consequences at the end of that storyline. They didn't matter much to the story or ending. Witcher 2 had real consequences to divergent paths

I thought you only needed recognition from each of the houses as being their war leader in the later stages of the main quest, not that you had to join one of the houses. The houses were joinable factions, but I don't remember that being a part of the main quest. Also that section can be skipped too, if you know what to do.

 

[SiskoBlue]

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.

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.

Finally! Someone else who saw the genius in Alpha Protocol. I have a particular hatred of Fallout New Vegas now because of Alpha Protocol (I'll explain in a bit). You only really see how clever they were in Alpha Protocol if you go for multiple playthroughs. Someone at Obsidian went to a lot of trouble ensuring continuity. I completely missed the Korean sniper story my first time. Also get Rome wrong and the girl dies! Really impressive is the main bosses flashback speech, they never ONCE got the continuity wrong saying you did something you didn't.

But that Afghan bit at the beginning is too generic and too long. The game mechanics were a bit old school by the time it came out (to be fair, the game got delayed 3-5 years from when I first heard about it). The invisibility stealth was OP and a bit ridiculous, but look past all that and it was a solid game. Of course, if Obsidian hadn't won the contract to do Fallout New Vegas, they may have kept their A-team on Alpha Protocol and ironed those issues out. Instead, they rushed it at the end so they could work on their big title (they needed the money), so you have a game with really solid under pinnings but a severe lack of polish on gameplay. Personally though I just loved it.