rpgs need more choice and consequence

hemo memo

Member
Do it the Witcher 3 way. Less dialogue choices but they actually alter the story in a significant way. But that would be complicated and would require a lot of time and resources they aren’t willing to take.
 
I think a big difference is your age at the time and also how involved you were when it came to reading up on video games. Back then I was a little kid and happened to choose the game at a rental store. I played it and saw the credits without ever hearing about an inverted castle. I still thought it was a great game. Years later a friend told me about the inverted castle when the 360 version released. That was when I finally learned about it and experienced it for myself.
Absolutely age is a huge factor. If you were 5 years old in 1997 I wouldn’t expect you to be reading the EGMs and Gamelan magazines of the day scouring over previews months before the game release’s.
How old were you anyway if it took you 10years to figure that out?
 
Last edited:

WakeTheWolf

Member
The thing that i appreciate the most in an rpg is when my choices matter and affect the story and very few rpgs actually do this most of them are doing it in a very shallow way , they either create the illusion of choice or just give you a couple of choices close to the ending of the game that will determine how the story ends

games like wasteland 3 , divinity original sin , fallout new vegas are doing this perfectly . What is the point of creating a character the way i want if there are no choices that let me use my personality in the game world , there is nothing more immersive than when the things happening in the story are happening because of my actions , not because someone forced those events down my throat
My game Grimfel is doing exactly this. Over 10 different endings so far based on choices and consequences. We are on Kickstarter right now. I'd send a link but not sure on rules.
 

01011001

Gold Member
This is why New Vegas is one of the GOATs


touche pas a mon poste lol GIF by C8
 

Wildebeest

Member
I feel like you are greatly underestimating how much choice has an impact on the game.
No, I'm personally dismissing how much impact other people felt those choices had on them when making their own impression of the game because they didn't transform my overall impression of the game in the same way. I'm committing the serious crime of thinking for myself and trusting my own senses.
 

22•22

Doesnt need recognition
Well. First I have to care about the story/theme and characters. The hero's and villains to be interested in my choices and what it will lead to

Happens rarely but that's also mostly on me i guess seeing that I'm not playing much rpg's. Even in Elden Ring IDGAF what eventually happens lol.

Not sure why I posted this lol
 
Last edited:

Alandring

Member
Actually getting the ending depending on how Geralt treats Ciri, and more importantly how Ciri perceives it was quite brilliant. Jeff Vogel had a good article about it.
I disagree, because I don't think choosing between a good and a bad ending is a good choice. If he knows, nobody would choose to let Ciri dies.

And yes, there is not a choice in TW3 that would result in almost half the game being different. But that's logical given that it is an open world game. You can still effect fates of shit ton of people and even entire countries based on your choices. And there are some very long separate sequences that branch out depending on your choices. Skellige or Toussaint come to mind, or Baron in Velen..
First, I think that the world should be different based on your previous choices: is Henselt alive? Stannis? Where is Anaïs? There is many characters that has completely disappeared between The Witcher 2 and The Witcher 3, and it's really perturbing. If you want an example of the contrary, Mass Effect 3 is really good at bringing back every important character of the first two games.

Secondly, there is many important choices... that don't make any sense.
The Reason of State is the worst of all for me. Why would you kill Radovid, after two games about how witchers should stay neutral? And who would really choice Djikstra over Vernon Roche, your friend of the previous game?

Finally, in my opinion, the battle of Kaer Morhen should be the last part of the game. A final battle. with all your allies from the three games and possibly
Alvin against you if you let the wild hunt take it in The Witcher 1.
Everything that happened after it... isn't interesting.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely age is a huge factor. If you were 5 years old in 1997 I wouldn’t expect you to be reading the EGMs and Gamelan magazines of the day scouring over previews months before the game release’s.
How old were you anyway if it took you 10years to figure that out?

I first played the game in 2000 so I was 9. My dad would bring back game magazines from stores most of the time but I guess he skipped the one that revealed it's big secret 🤷🏻‍♂️

It's not that it took me years to figure it out, as it was just a game rental at the time and I wasn't necessarily looking into it during that time span between PS1 and 360. It's that I was just enjoying other games during that time span and happened to notice the re-release on 360. My friend and I liked it so much that we bought it on 360, and by then the internet itself had reached the YouTube era, so he just so happened to discover a video showing off the inverted castle and told me about it.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I'd settle for them having interesting loot. Outside of Elden Ring, rpg loot has been garbage in nearly every one I have played.
 

Eddie-Griffin

Cancer the womens baby so we can pregnant the panda, we are looking for igloos tonight Are you sexy?
No, I'm personally dismissing how much impact other people felt those choices had on them when making their own impression of the game because they didn't transform my overall impression of the game in the same way. I'm committing the serious crime of thinking for myself and trusting my own senses.

Your IMPRESSION of the game is feelings.

The FACT is that the choices were directly made to change numerous outcomes throughout the game at a high quantity. Which is what you want, even if you may personally not like AP itself, if you played it. However, that wouldn't change the fact the mechanic is there.
 

Denton

Member
First, I think that the world should be different based on your previous choices: is Henselt alive? Stannis? Where is Anaïs? There is many characters that has completely disappeared between The Witcher 2 and The Witcher 3, and it's really perturbing. If you want an example of the contrary, Mass Effect 3 is really good at bringing back every important character of the first two games.

It is fine for developers to pick a canon and follow from there, it's a valid design choice. Obviously I would also love to see every little decision in TW1 and TW2 reflected in TW3, but I accepted that TW3 tells its own story. If Henselt is alive or not is irrelevant to that story, since Kaedwen was conquered by Redania.

Mass Effect trilogy is more impressive in bringing forward choices, yes. It is also pretty much the only AAA series that does this, for a reason. Witcher 3 still carries forward at least some decisions (I loved seeing Letho again, so unexpectedly). The stuff it does not bring forward is not relevant to the story developers wanted to tell. Take it or leave it.

The Reason of State is the worst of all for me. Why would you kill Radovid, after two games about how witchers should stay neutral? And who would really choice Djikstra over Vernon Roche, your friend of the previous game?

Ok, first off, "Witchers should stay neutral" is a cliche even Geralt does not believe in. When staying neutral means letting good people suffer, Geralt is never gonna be neutral, that's just who he is based on books and games.

As for Dijkstra over Vernon, that's up to the player to decide. My bigger problem with that quest was that Dijkstra decided to take an axe and go after Geralt himself if he sides with Vernon. That was distinctly un-Dijkstra like to the point where I wish CDP would retcon this flawed story moment and make Dijkstra there into a hired Doppler or something.

And regarding the battle, that's your opinion. I found it awesome that after this climactic battle, I still had dozens of hours of playtime to go. You didn't. Too bad but that's not the game's flaw.
 

OOGABOOGA

Banned

It's usless and a waste of time. The only thing I care about is the game giving many choices to beat the level.
 

Wildebeest

Member
Your IMPRESSION of the game is feelings.

The FACT is that the choices were directly made to change numerous outcomes throughout the game at a high quantity. Which is what you want, even if you may personally not like AP itself, if you played it. However, that wouldn't change the fact the mechanic is there.
You can't tell me it is a fact that I felt a certain way a game in a video game, when I know for a fact I did not feel that way. Branching was, so what? For me, it didn't make AP a success as a game, and it didn't make it feel like an RPG, just added a sort of "choose your own adventure" element which I felt was sporadically good. Like I say, there is not much feeling of gaining competence in this sort of decision-making. You just do whatever you feel like at the moment and have no real idea what consequences will occur.
 

Raonak

Member
Having actual concequences (actual game overs, and meaningful and permanaent changes to the game world, being locked out of content) would actually be kinda frustrating as a player.
Most people would just google the best choices and going along with that.
 

Batiman

Member
This is sort of why I don’t like most RPGs I play nowadays. I find myself asking myself what’s the point of playing this when everyone else playing this game is on the same path? Are my actions differing from anyone else experience? With final fantasy 7 remaster it’s almost as if it was an experience more than an actual game. Mash some buttons and follow the straight path. It’s almost an interactive movie at that point.

Older jrpgs felt massive and open with decisions and places to go, but playing through ff6, ff9 and chrono trigger recently, they suffer the same issues that I’m complaining about now. I guess when I was younger I never really realized it.
 

Eddie-Griffin

Cancer the womens baby so we can pregnant the panda, we are looking for igloos tonight Are you sexy?
You can't tell me it is a fact that I felt a certain way a game in a video game, when I know for a fact I did not feel that way. Branching was, so what?
Sow hat? So you were wrong about your claim from before. Your feelings are not relevant to what the game factually had that you said it didn't have.
 

Ownage

Member
The thing that i appreciate the most in an rpg is when my choices matter and affect the story and very few rpgs actually do this most of them are doing it in a very shallow way , they either create the illusion of choice or just give you a couple of choices close to the ending of the game that will determine how the story ends

games like wasteland 3 , divinity original sin , fallout new vegas are doing this perfectly . What is the point of creating a character the way i want if there are no choices that let me use my personality in the game world , there is nothing more immersive than when the things happening in the story are happening because of my actions , not because someone forced those events down my throat
Agree. Take the story off the rails. Refuse to chase the plot and go fishing, or beat the other protagonists up and go furniture shopping. Oh wait, that's Star Wars Galaxies from 2003.
 

Merkades

Member
Hard disagree for me. I want zero choices. The character isn't me and most of the time I don't agree with the choices options anyways. I would rather they spent that time and effort improving the game instead of alternate scenarios that mostly don't really matter anyways, since the permutations would get out of hand fast.

A well made character with their own personality, that is what I want.
 

Wildebeest

Member
Sow hat? So you were wrong about your claim from before. Your feelings are not relevant to what the game factually had that you said it didn't have.
No.
What I said is:
1 A game with good choice and consequence looks more like Way of the Samurai than Alpha Protocol to me.
2 What people think is an iconic "feature" of an RPG is very subjective.
This thing about me making incorrect factual claims about the content of Alpha Protocol is totally in your stubborn head.
 
Last edited:

DZ_b_EZ

Member
The games already take too long to develop and you want them to spend more time to make the systems even more detailed and intricate??

Mate.....
Come On Eyeroll GIF
 

Eddie-Griffin

Cancer the womens baby so we can pregnant the panda, we are looking for igloos tonight Are you sexy?

Eddie-Griffin

Cancer the womens baby so we can pregnant the panda, we are looking for igloos tonight Are you sexy?
What is basically trolling is taking what I wrote out of context, where I made it very clear that I was talking about my personal opinion on how I value what the choices added to the game.

There is no opinion on "but they could easily have cut that and it would be largely the same game." when the choices and consequences literally make more than half the game happen. So you lose the majority of the game if it was taken out.

And then theres you saying it's not an rpg because you didn't like who made them? These aren't reasonable positions in any discourse.
 

april6e

Member
The Mass Effect Trilogy is the most expansive attempt to have a game have changed story and gameplay elements based on the choices you make in gaming history. And it is almost universally crapped on it for not having enough choice.

There just isn't a way, game development limitations wise, to actually have a game where choice really matters. It is too daunting of a development task to create content for dozens of different timeline scenarios people create with their choices. I'm sure people will name *insert x game here* and the Mass Effect Trilogy still dwarfs any game ever made in terms of all the changed scenarios and dialogue acknowledging choices you made.
 
Last edited:

samoilaaa

Member
The games already take too long to develop and you want them to spend more time to make the systems even more detailed and intricate??

Mate.....
Come On Eyeroll GIF
i understand what you are saying , but it is doable , i would rather wait 4-5 years and play a good game than wait 1-2 years and play a mediocre game , ofc it all depends on how talanted are the devs , the game can be in development for 5+ years and still suck
 

poodaddy

Gold Member
Hard disagree for me. I want zero choices. The character isn't me and most of the time I don't agree with the choices options anyways. I would rather they spent that time and effort improving the game instead of alternate scenarios that mostly don't really matter anyways, since the permutations would get out of hand fast.

A well made character with their own personality, that is what I want.
Then why play RPG's at all? You're looking for adventure and action games, and there are tons of choices, but the whole point of an RPG is those choices and their consequences, as they really give weight to the role you're playing. It's fine to want zero choices in your games, but then why even play RPG's if you clearly don't like the genre when there are so many alternatives to engage with.
 
Last edited:

Wildebeest

Member
There is no opinion on "but they could easily have cut that and it would be largely the same game." when the choices and consequences literally make more than half the game happen. So you lose the majority of the game if it was taken out.

And then theres you saying it's not an rpg because you didn't like who made them? These aren't reasonable positions in any discourse.
All you are saying is that my personal opinions irritated you so much that they made you totally irrational and can't just let me have them or even have my own understanding of what my actual opinions are. I don't care. I'm not a person who never says what they actually think in order to avoid getting into some stupid and embarrassing slap fight with people who can't understand it or handle it.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
Then why play RPG's at all?
You do know there are different RPGs out there, right? Choices and consequences does not fit in every type of stories.

Also choices in RPGs is not always about stories, they are also about how you want build your character and your party members.
 

Teslerum

Member
All you are saying is that my personal opinions irritated you so much that they made you totally irrational and can't just let me have them or even have my own understanding of what my actual opinions are. I don't care. I'm not a person who never says what they actually think in order to avoid getting into some stupid and embarrassing slap fight with people who can't understand it or handle it.
Yes, you're so smart. :messenger_downcast_sweat:

Here's the simple answer: You're wrong, because you made a statement (and no it wasn't worded as an opinion) that is in fact wrong.

Edit: In the same vein I could state that Devil May Cry games would be largely the same game without combat, because I don't *feel* the combat.
I'd be hammered for that and that's good.

Feelings don't come into play if you make such a specific statement.
 
Last edited:

Laptop1991

Member
Need more real RPG's firstly, that's why i liked The Outer World's a lot, New Vegas had the best choices and consequences, it was sadly lacking in Fallout 4, i agree with the OP, personally, hopefully Starfield will have it covered.
 

samoilaaa

Member
Need more real RPG's firstly, that's why i liked The Outer World's a lot, New Vegas had the best choices and consequences, it was sadly lacking in Fallout 4, i agree with the OP, personally, hopefully Starfield will have it covered.
i dont think that we will get real rpgs from big studios and the reason is that rpgs are very complicated compared to a 10-15 hour action adventure game and will require a lot of money , a big studio that invests alot of money also wants alot of money as profit from their product and an rpg is a very risky because most gamers these days dont like complicated games in which they have to ask themselves , where do i go , what kind of skills i need to use , why are the enemies to op , why doesnt the journal tell me exactly what to do next etc.

real rpgs come from small devs that still make games because of passion and not money , just look at a game like divinity original sin 2 vs horizon forbidden west , ofc DOS2 is more of an rpg than horizon will ever be but DOS barely sold 2million copies and horizon will most likely surpass 20 million by the end of the gen because it has cutscenes , better graphics , its easy so it doesnt have frustrating moments , it doesnt matter if the game is made for braindead players with puzzles that even a 10 year old could solve and even if you cant solve it dont worry after a couple of minutes aloy will give you the solution herself
 

Laptop1991

Member
i dont think that we will get real rpgs from big studios and the reason is that rpgs are very complicated compared to a 10-15 hour action adventure game and will require a lot of money , a big studio that invests alot of money also wants alot of money as profit from their product and an rpg is a very risky because most gamers these days dont like complicated games in which they have to ask themselves , where do i go , what kind of skills i need to use , why are the enemies to op , why doesnt the journal tell me exactly what to do next etc.

real rpgs come from small devs that still make games because of passion and not money , just look at a game like divinity original sin 2 vs horizon forbidden west , ofc DOS2 is more of an rpg than horizon will ever be but DOS barely sold 2million copies and horizon will most likely surpass 20 million by the end of the gen because it has cutscenes , better graphics , its easy so it doesnt have frustrating moments , it doesnt matter if the game is made for braindead players with puzzles that even a 10 year old could solve and even if you cant solve it dont worry after a couple of minutes aloy will give you the solution herself

Yeah, although cost is now the excuse of all the triple A gaming industry for their mediocre output, it will be interesting to see what Avowed and The Outer Worlds 2 turn out like, i'm hoping and expecting them to be better Rpg's seeing who is making them with bigger budgets.
 

Eddie-Griffin

Cancer the womens baby so we can pregnant the panda, we are looking for igloos tonight Are you sexy?
All you are saying is that my personal opinions

it wasn't an opinion, you basically said the equivalent of: "If you took guns out of Grand theft Auto the game would be the same game" knowing full well that it wouldn't.

Sorry.

At best your projecting, you can't handle the fact that a company you don't like made an rpg some people regard as good or higher. That's why you started your rant with "it's not an rpg because of who made it" that doesn't seem like a reasonable position to take but hey, you seem to have a massive hate boner for Obsidian.
 

bender

What time is it?
I'd settle for them having interesting loot. Outside of Elden Ring, rpg loot has been garbage in nearly every one I have played.

Even some of the loot in Elden Ring couldn't support the length of the campaign. A lot of the rings Talisman had four or so versions. I do appreciate the Souls games not having randomly generated loot though the Nioh series does a good job of Diablo styled loot.
 

Redefine07

Member
Go play some good old classics like Gothic 1/2 or the new fan made mod Gothic 2 : Chronicles of Myrtana: Archolos

 
Last edited:

Himuro

Member
There are shit ton of choices and consequences in Witcher 3, both large and small. Same in first two games.

Are they as widely branching as top down games like Pathfinder 2? Not quite. But RPG genre is not limited to top down crpgs.

And obviously, AAA RPGs where you have to model every little thing and voice everything is always going to be more constrained in their possibility space than mostly text-driven top down games. Text can handle a lot.
The shift from text based to voice based has completely stifled RPGs, particularly western RPGs, of their previous depth. A big reason RPGs of old has the depth they did was because you played as nameless characters you were forced to create a background for that didn't talk, but allowed you to choose decisions or dialogue via text. Fallout New Vegas is such a rich role playing experience by making the main character not have a backstory, not giving them a voice which limits their dialogue and therefore role playing options. In New Vegas you can be whatever, whomever. In Fallout 4, which has voiced main character the depth becomes as deep as a puddle because now they have to consider the MC's voice actor and not the text decisions.

Moreover, this leads to increased budget. RPGs were already an expensive genre. Voice acting for every dialogue choice and every character forces these games to sacrifice something - anytbing- to make ends meet.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom