Weekly Poll 11/4/19 - Consequences! And missed content!

[Sardukhar]

I think we've all had the choice - "but if I shoot this smug &*^^%!@ in the face as he so richly deserves, I will miss his quest content! I can't do it! I know. I'll do his quests, then come back later!" You weak, weak weaksie you. I, too, have been weak. Shoot him! Suffer the consequences!

An example of this is Stout in the demo - if you shoot her ( and live ) bye bye Maelstrom content, maybe. No one wants that? Or do they?

Would you like to see whole plot arcs locked off, as in Witcher 2? NPC quest lines gone? Or should there be workarounds?

You have foouuuuur choices. If you want 5, you must pick! You cannot have everything! The poll -is- the answer!



As always, our ever-swelling repository of Poll Hopes for our Polish Masters to gaze at in awe and worry at is here.

 

[metalmaniac21]

I'm tired of sandbox rpgs with growing large save game files and bloated gameplay time due to not having alternate paths and shoving everything the player can see in one playthrough on one said save file. I'm all for choices having concequences and having to actually do something to unlock new quests.

 

[Sardukhar]

Ooooh! Maybe we'll do Stout month! I'm thinking I like this.

shoot/not shoot and why - chip/not chip and why - clothing taste good/bad - Like her/don't care/hate her...hmmm.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

2, 5, 6 & 7.

Would’ve voted 1 too, because it is just as important as alternative paths/questgivers where firm consequences are called for. And in the Stout example it should definitely be it... Shoot Meredith and that’s it for her questline, on top you get your name on a list and some heavy hitting goons after you. Perhaps the narrative consequences lead you to a different path and different people than what you intended, but Stout is gone along with what ever she could’ve offered.

I doubt, though, that you are allowed to kill her.

 

[AlexiaRevan]

I think we've all had the choice - "but if I shoot this smug &*^^%!@ in the face as he so richly deserves, I will miss his quest content! I can't do it! I know. I'll do his quests, then come back later!" You weak, weak weaksie you. I, too, have been weak. Shoot him! Suffer the consequences!

An example of this is Stout in the demo - if you shoot her ( and live ) bye bye Maelstrom content, maybe. No one wants that? Or do they?

Would you like to see whole plot arcs locked off, as in Witcher 2? NPC quest lines gone? Or should there be workarounds?

You have foouuuuur choices. If you want 5, you must pick! You cannot have everything! The poll -is- the answer!



As always, our ever-swelling repository of Poll Hopes for our Polish Masters to gaze in awe and worry at is here.

Your secret is out...

we know...

10. I don't care as long as I can choose so Jackie lives. I wub him!

Tha truth is outta there now lol .

But kidding aside...that made me laugh .

well I only picked one choice, the option to be able to shoot a quest giver but to be able to salvage it by going to say..a rival or something ? Like say this guy tell you to go bust this slave out ? So that would be your Goody choice, but he say something or look at you wrong or your finger itch and shoot him in the face . Its a done deal, he die...you lose his quest. What I like, is the chance that it open a choice of doing a renegade quest and give me a choice of 'Take it..or dont do it'' . Like ''Bust this slave so this new guy gonna sell said slave'' .

I'm all for consequences as long as they are FAIR . There are many games that do give you choices, but some moments where you wish you could do something..you cant do squat! Its scripted like that! Suck to be you!

The main concern with 'Hardcore choices' is they dont take into account BUGS that could mess up said quest. And you can end up..screwed and it isnt even your fault .

 

[EngryEngineer]

1 & 5 - Your actions should have an impact to the game including eliminating or creating quest opportunities.
7 - If the world is rich enough there should not be a way to satisfy everyone fully, and choosing between competing motives should alter the game, put together you should need more than one play through to see everything.

I am a parent of multiple children, full time professional, and a full time student, I have the bias of having VERY limited time for games and I move through game environments and dialogue slowly. That said I'd prefer to play the same game for my 5- hours a week for the next year+ in order to see everything than to spend 1/3 of the time having only the illusion of choice like most RPG's.

 

[Draconifors]

1, 5, and 7.


I like firm consequences that make it impossible to do/see everything with a single character. I find that they, perhaps paradoxically, can provide more freedom than "soft" consequences that merely affect the reward you get or something like that.
It's really hard to explain (I already tried and failed twice but if you see this sentence I found a way in the end)...

Let's say a faction has content (quests, items, etc.) that are reaaaaally tempting -- but the faction itself is loathsome. Let's also say you get a choice between killing the faction's leader and agreeing to work with/for them. Now, if killing the leader automatically locks you out of the faction's content then by doing that you can make sure the temptation of the content within the faction you loathe will not become too much. Whereas if killing the leader merely complicates dealing with the faction then you won't be free of the temptation.

Maybe it only makes sense to me, I don't know, but it is my view. And it doesn't have to be about killing, that's just an example.

Also, I like the finality 1 would bring. Bonus points if there's something like what happens in Skyrim if you kill a certain murderous lady.


As for 5... well, I find it far more interesting to have multiple potential outcomes than just a binary A/B. For example, killing Stout could lock V out of Maelstrom content, attacking but failing to kill could have less drastic consequences, attacking her cronies could have yet another set of consequences, etc.


Quest significance shouldn't be tied to the firmness of consequences. That's just unimaginative and boring. I also don't really like the idea of V's stats affecting the severity of consequences.
And, I'm not a fan of being able to do everything with one character. I know from experience that it's counterproductive when it comes to staying in character (roleplaying).

Spoiler: PS.

A special mention for the wording of that last sentence in your OP, Sard. I'm finding it far too hilarious.

 

[MauricioMM]

Easy: 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Locking some paths is always interesting but everything’s in the context. It depends on how crucial some quests and characters are, plus I’d need to have the smallest of hints to know how affecting my actions could be.

In the case of characters like Stout and Sasquatch, the hints are pretty clear: Stout is an agent of one of the biggest megacorps in the world, so whatever happens to her I know will have consequences that’ll affect my V and an unknown quantity of NPCs all around City Center and other districts, assuming of course that Militech cares that much about her (e.g. Gilchrist could be a more important person than her). Sasquatch, on the other hand, is a gang leader that, if killed, might make my V’s life more difficult in locations where Animals loyal to her are needed as bouncers or bodyguards, but not much outside of that.

How serious would the consequences be for cases like those in practice? No idea, I hope serious enough to make me regret my actions a little bit at least ("What type of people and places would I have known if Stout was still alive?", "If I hadn’t killed Sasquatch, would she be my ally now?")

And at least I don’t need to see everything there is in the game in one go, look at the romances in The Witcher 3 for instance. I chose Yennefer in my first (and currently only) playthrough so I missed Triss’ quests and her romantic interactions with Geralt but that’s okay, that’s the beauty of choices and consequences.

(I would’ve loved to see

Spoiler: The Witcher 3 spoilers

Nilfgaard properly occupy Novigrad in the 'Radovid Dead' ending

, by the way.)

 

[LordSerion]

5, 6 and 8. It should depend on your actions but if you play the cards right, you should see the majority. And there should be some reserved for specialists alone.

 

[Rawls]

1, 7. Choices and consequences.

 

[EngryEngineer]

1, 7. Choices and consequences.

Who would've guessed that Rawls would want strong player liberty balanced by opportunity and consequence?

 

[Sild]

4 and 7.

As for Stout.. That's a trick question. You shoot.. she maybe dead, you surely dead.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

5, 6 and 8.
I want it to feel like the real deal.
I hated when I played Mass Effect 3 only to discover that choices I took minutes to decide had no real conscequences where they should have the potential to be game changers, either as a game breaker or as a potential Deus Ex Machina.

 

[Tree_Fox]

I feel like you should be able to do everything in one playthrough. However, I think the quest should play out differently (rewards blocked off, shitty consequences, unexpected consequences, etc).

I think not being able to do everything in a single playthrough is a cop-out for devs to say that their game is "replayable".

So... a mix between 2, 3, 7, and 8. All the quests should be doable, but the consequences could end up making your V's life hellish.

 

[Suhiira]

1 & 4 & 7.

You kill (or otherwise screw up/over) a quest giver before you finish their quest, you're screwed.

That said, obviously in some (most?) cases there has to be a way to continue the main story-line else it's "Game Over". Maybe another person gives the quest, maybe there's another way to acquire the needed information, maybe you continue on without the information. BUT, while this sort of thing is easy to deal with in a live game the limitations of video games once again rear their head.

Seven just because in most games you're not going to have all the skills/stats to be able to do everything thus there will (should) be content you miss. We all know this isn't the case in many games ... "We created this content by damn the player is going to see it!". And there are always those players that whine when they don't get to see and do everything in a game (i.e. the RPG clueless ... all games should play like shooters!).

 

[Heart Of Dawn]

I'd like a mixed approach- the consequences of some actions can be circumvented, whereas others are final. And is with real life you may not be able to figure out which is which until it's too late.

 

[CyberBrett]

It seems i am the lone voice of reason on this thread , no one in their right mind will shoot Meredith i want my V the get it on with her

I think you should be able the do everything in one play thru , if the game is that big you might only play completely thru once ( i did play TW3 2 1/2 times ). I also think if you shoot a quest giver you should suffer the consequences for your dumb play and miss out on some quests .

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

no one in their right mind will shoot Meredith

If she tries to play Bully with my V I will.

 

[atomowyturysta]

Don't shoot Stout! She's lovely!
Someone broke her heart and made that way! She just needs some real lovin'!

 

[Has_Neyn]

2 and 8. I know this goes against a lot of roleplaying mechanics, but I just like to do everything.