We need to get back to the days where a game LET YOU break missions by either killing NPC's or destroying items or dropping quest items etc. Since then, games have introduced all kinds of NANNIES. Tell you exactly where to go., who to talk to. in the dialog it shows you exactly what options to choose (highlighted in yellow for example ) won't let you roleplay because the game (speaking generally here, not specifically CP2077) wants you to play a specific way (be a goodie not a baddie) and follow a specific story and have the outcomes a quest designer preconceived.
I think this pattern needs to RETURN TO ITS ROOTS. If a player decides not to do a main mission, is that not the same as them deciding to kill one of the essential NPCs (figuratively) It's their decision and they own the outcome. As long as we can save scum we can recover from bad decisions (and that's fine in my opinion).
IMMERSION is the new standard. Not movie games. Sandbox over story.
Create a living, real world with AI behaviors and full lifecycle daily life. Let the NPCs have their dialogs, goals and reactions and drop players in. They SHOULD NO LONGER be the center of attention. Let the world, present itself and players decide who and what to react to. This is life. There is no hand holding. Especially in a cold dystopian cyberpunk setting. That is the brutal reality that the video game should inherit from the TTRPG and the genre in general. The EXPERIENCE IS THE GAME.
Now, sure, there are stories and they should be everywhere. Finding them, following them, choosing paths. THAT is what a TTRPG and Cyberpunk is ALL ABOUT. That should be THE GAME. No cutscenes or extended NPC monologues plz.
Some players might be turned off at the realism and freedom sure. But the same amount of players will be turned off with stories on rails and scripted sequences you can't lose too. So its better to move the genre forward and talk a BOLD STANCE towards realism and immersion and eventually the move-game-lovers will come around.
The Cyberpunk 2077 success at all level is based on the exceptionnal story, characters, the perfect music at the perfect moment, the connexion with others medias (Edge Runner). So the story is very important. I'm not againt more choices in story and interaction with the player actions, but I don't want a "sandbox over story". This isn't in the DNA of CDPR, it isn't what made theses games successful. I stopped Bethesda games exactly because they are essentially sandbox over story.
A video game can't presently be really a TTRPG. Maybe with some futur generative IA, but the current doesn't seems able to do it. I would be happy to test a game like this in the futur, but I don't think it will be a CDPR game.
Like, the reason we don't have any actual choices in games is because any divergent path needs to be fully written and implemented.
Which is why we only get shallow things like "Be a jerk" or "Don't be a jerk" and the outcome is still the exact same but with a few altered dialogues.
Stories have to be linear because that's all they can allow. Maybe if a game had like 50 years of development where the team was focused on writing every possible combination of paths, we could get something more open ended... But that's never going to happen because of how much it costs.
Even if we had Gen AI that wasn't pure slop, it would most likely be trying to get you back onto the singular story path that developers created themselves.
This is true for the cutscenes too, which have to default to a specific pre-made result (I.e. V and their ability to pull out a Liberty pistol from their butt on command). There would have to be multiple scenes made to incorporate other weapons (Especially melee weapons) and some way of determining which scene to play for a character.
As far as other things... Of course we could go back to giving players no information... But often that just annoys people as they have to start to rely on 3rd party websites to tell them the information they need.
It also makes little sense in Cyberpunk's world, where even the HUD is explained as an in-universe system that exists because everyone has cyberware and you get given cyber-eyes and bunches of databases worth of information uploaded into your eyes to track...
Meaning, Cyberpunk is the one game where it actually makes sense that every objective and person is highlighted and you have direction markers showing you where to go and what to do... Since this is based off in-universe tech. (Of course, some things are silly, like holo-calls somehow having a video of a person's face like they have a camera flying a foot in front of them at all times. Also the dialogue options being highlighted is kind of dumb, especially with how many of them are singular responses to pick)
We need to get back to the days where a game LET YOU break missions by either killing NPC's or destroying items or dropping quest items etc. Since then, games have introduced all kinds of NANNIES. Tell you exactly where to go., who to talk to. in the dialog it shows you exactly what options to choose (highlighted in yellow for example ) won't let you roleplay because the game (speaking generally here, not specifically CP2077) wants you to play a specific way (be a goodie not a baddie) and follow a specific story and have the outcomes a quest designer preconceived.
Like, the reason we don't have any actual choices in games is because any divergent path needs to be fully written and implemented.
Which is why we only get shallow things like "Be a jerk" or "Don't be a jerk" and the outcome is still the exact same but with a few altered dialogues.
^ That's the issue, I'd say. We have a lot of "habits" that have been developed in games over time, largely based on technical limitations, and that has created some disparity between new ideas and how welcoming producers and players will be of them.
But...we also now have Baldur's Gate 3...which proves beyond any doubt it can certainly be done.
The next hurdle is figuring out how to work a system like that into other genres and engines, as it will not be possible to do something like that with anything and everything. But I think we will see more truly sandbox gameplay with a heavily branching narrative that creates a web throughout it.
It has the same stipulations as every other game. In many ways, it does less than other games because it doesn't even have a proper "Evil" route because it had so little development time on it. To say nothing about other aspects of the game where it forgets it gave players an option (For example, if you don't tell Jaheria about the Artifact in Act 2 using a very high skill check... She just goes and references you having the Artifact anyway)
All BG3 does, is have a few extra inconsequential options available for inane interactions. Which is the common factor for this sort of thing. Breadth vs Depth.
It's a similar thing for Scribblenauts which has huge breadth, as there are hundreds of items and adjectives put into the game and these are all coded to function as answers to the game's many puzzles. But the cost is the game is as shallow as a puddle in summer. As all the development resources went into making all the different item interactions rather than making a game with anything material.
Same thing with the Hitman games. They offer a lot of ways to interact with the world, plenty of items and NPC behaviours. But lack much beyond that (As well as having limits on the size of the game, being stuck in the limited areas of each mission with there only being a handful of missions)
We haven't seen anything truly revolutionary in terms of deep choices. Even games that include different "Paths" still have things mostly follow the exact same route with only minor changes (For example, BG3 you can kill the goblins or kill the tieflings... But you still end up taking out Ketheric and then dealing with the other bad guys and then end up in the same final encounter with the same outcomes)
This is largely due to development time. All the time to write out these divergences (Also these days it also means hiring the VA's to voice them) and then implement them... It is essentially making a brand new game just with reused assets as that's what it is when you are writing an entirely new story due to divergence from a single choice (Let alone multiple choices each with their own divergences)
Which then has to factor in... How worthwhile is it to even bother doing all that? How many people will actually be making those choices to actually ever see this content you're working so hard on? This is something Larian figured out during Early Access of BG3, they saw that barely anyone bothered to interact with the "Evil" route at all, so they focused almost exclusively on the "Good" route that everyone interacted with.
Meanwhile, we're still not seeing proper choice in actual gameplay. A place it's much easier to allow for freedom as all you need to do is make a specific encounter viable to be bypassed with different methods. Yet we still see tons of forced combat, dumb boss fights and a total lack of options in most gameplay.
Let alone any narrative freedom. Which even in older games was tantamount to "We didn't bother to make key items/characters labelled as essential so you can lose them and brick the story"
It has the same stipulations as every other game. In many ways, it does less than other games because it doesn't even have a proper "Evil" route because it had so little development time on it. To say nothing about other aspects of the game where it forgets it gave players an option (For example, if you don't tell Jaheria about the Artifact in Act 2 using a very high skill check... She just goes and references you having the Artifact anyway)
All BG3 does, is have a few extra inconsequential options available for inane interactions. Which is the common factor for this sort of thing. Breadth vs Depth.
It's a similar thing for Scribblenauts which has huge breadth, as there are hundreds of items and adjectives put into the game and these are all coded to function as answers to the game's many puzzles. But the cost is the game is as shallow as a puddle in summer. As all the development resources went into making all the different item interactions rather than making a game with anything material.
Same thing with the Hitman games. They offer a lot of ways to interact with the world, plenty of items and NPC behaviours. But lack much beyond that (As well as having limits on the size of the game, being stuck in the limited areas of each mission with there only being a handful of missions)
We haven't seen anything truly revolutionary in terms of deep choices. Even games that include different "Paths" still have things mostly follow the exact same route with only minor changes (For example, BG3 you can kill the goblins or kill the tieflings... But you still end up taking out Ketheric and then dealing with the other bad guys and then end up in the same final encounter with the same outcomes)
This is largely due to development time. All the time to write out these divergences (Also these days it also means hiring the VA's to voice them) and then implement them... It is essentially making a brand new game just with reused assets as that's what it is when you are writing an entirely new story due to divergence from a single choice (Let alone multiple choices each with their own divergences)
Which then has to factor in... How worthwhile is it to even bother doing all that? How many people will actually be making those choices to actually ever see this content you're working so hard on? This is something Larian figured out during Early Access of BG3, they saw that barely anyone bothered to interact with the "Evil" route at all, so they focused almost exclusively on the "Good" route that everyone interacted with.
Meanwhile, we're still not seeing proper choice in actual gameplay. A place it's much easier to allow for freedom as all you need to do is make a specific encounter viable to be bypassed with different methods. Yet we still see tons of forced combat, dumb boss fights and a total lack of options in most gameplay.
Let alone any narrative freedom. Which even in older games was tantamount to "We didn't bother to make key items/characters labelled as essential so you can lose them and brick the story"
Technically, yes, and what you're arguing will always be a limitation of this sort of game design. Distilling down the argument:
~ Video games can't "make it up as they go" -- especially not for games that also want to deliver a strong, cohesive narrative. They must be coded specifically for every possible outcome. ~
True. Hypothetically (perhaps even theoretically, at this point) AI will be able to change that, but I highly doubt that we're going to wind up with stuff that works "well" for the next few decades.
But, I also think that BG3 made an incredible stride toward the amount choice-and-consequence that can be successfully worked into a gaming experience at so many simultaneous levels. For the limitations we have been working under for the past 30 years or so, it's proof that things can be much, much more robust. (All the way to a true free-for-all with narrative that adapts to every possible outcome? No. But can we increase the existing systems so that options are exponentially greater? Absolutely.)
I would argue it's unfair and invalid to use an extreme or inherent limitation to dismiss and/or devalue achievements and improvements that are made within the extremes or established confines. (It's sort of like arguing that the modern road system accomplishes very little because it's still "on the ground." So what's the difference between walking trails, gravel roads, and fully-paved 16-lane interstate highways? It's not like they've achieved flight or space travel, so they're basically valueless innovations.)
I think what BG3 is a significant leap. The purpose of any sort "immersive" game (RPG, Action, Adventure, Simulation, Horror, etc.) is to allow players to suspend their disbelief and engage in a world that grants a strong sense of player agency. The moment-to-moment choice and consequence is pretty unrivaled. I'll even go so far as to say that while TW3 offered some real surprises (especially with longer-term consequences,) it doesn't come close to the sheer amount or nuance that Baldur's Gate pulled off. BG3 was a tremendous feat of incorporating not just dialogue options or key combat encounters...but meshing charcater race, class, abilities, items, the environement, past decisions, and current dialogue into almost every waking moment of the gameplay that in most cases (not just occassional cases) results in a significantly different outcome. True, the game follows the same narrative path between acts 1-3 -- but it's the epitome of, "It's about the journey, not the destination."
I'm hard to please with games, films, and books (surprise-surprise ...) but I was able to play through BG3 around 5 times before I stopped encountering new things constantly. Even after about 20 runs (not all complete,) I'm still encountering stuff I've never seen before. That's an insane level of interactivity from the world, and there is clearly a system behind it that drastically outdoes even other "branching games" from the past (Detroit, Life Is Strange, etc.)
I think that achievement will wind up having a great effect. It's proof that what, for nearly 30 years, studios or producers have been claiming is just not feasible or practical is 100% feasible and practical.
And that brings it right back to the OP:
Can we please have more games that just let me make choices or mistakes and continue on without a "game over" screen or being told I'm not allowed to do something?
I think, yes. Yes we can.
And, beyond that, not only can we now do what we want, but I think the game will be able to create many, many more pathways to an endgame scenario. I think that some games (though not all) will start to incorporate narratives that are less branching and more webbing.
(I also think CDPR may likely stick more to the linear narrative approach, regardless. When it boils down to it, their stories and character development are probably among their greatest strengths. Can't accomplish that with too much branching.)
I think what BG3 is a significant leap. The purpose of any sort "immersive" game (RPG, Action, Adventure, Simulation, Horror, etc.) is to allow players to suspend their disbelief and engage in a world that grants a strong sense of player agency. The moment-to-moment choice and consequence is pretty unrivaled. I'll even go so far as to say that while TW3 offered some real surprises (especially with longer-term consequences,) it doesn't come close to the sheer amount or nuance that Baldur's Gate pulled off. BG3 was a tremendous feat of incorporating not just dialogue options or key combat encounters...but meshing charcater race, class, abilities, items, past decisions, and current dialogue into almost every waking moment of the gameplay in such a way as it provids, in most cases (not just occassional cases) a significantly different outcome. True, the game follows the same narrative path between acts 1-3 -- but it's the epitome of, "It's about the journey, not the destination."
You see, in my ~200 playthroughs of the game... I've not seen that.
I've seen nothing in BG3 that does anything better than many other games. Especially other CRPG's (And doubly so, other Larian CRPG's)
Also, I'm sat here laughing at the part about "Meshing character race, class, abilities, items, past decisions and current dialogue into almost ever waking moment of the gameplay" when almost all of that is literally never relevant a single time in the entirety of the game. To the point where it's hilariously out of touch with player choice when a Githyanki player character is talked down to by Lae'zel who feels the need to explain Githyanki culture and defaults to the player to teach her about Faerun...
BG3 does nothing special for the genre besides beautify it. Other CRPG's have more depth than BG3 with things like character race, class, abilities, items, past decision and current dialogue actually mattering. BG3's schtick is that unlike other CRPG's it's not using isometric camera and small, low poly character models.
If anything, BG3 is a step backwards compared to the freedom and flexibility of other CRPG's. Ones that have fully fleshed out alternate paths.
Like how Rogue Trader has its 3 different dialogue paths and associated choices (Heretic - AKA Evil Jerk, Dogmatic - AKA Racist Jerk and Iconoclast - AKA Actual human being)
Path of the Righteous has the enitre path were you kill most of your allies to become a Lich.
Even the 2 prior BG titles had fleshed out alternate paths, including ones where you actually ally yourself with the antagonist.
BG3 is not a paragon of innovation. It has done nothing that hasn't been around in the CRPG genre for decades. All it has done is brought what has existed (In a weaker and less fleshed out form due to resource constraints) into mainstream, while applying a shiny coat of paint onto the whole affair.
Even some of the more unique things BG3 does, with the ability to move objects and jump on command (Allowing you to do things like stack crates to reach up to a higher platform) is just Larian fluff that's been around since Original Sin 1 (With it reaching its peak in Original Sin 2 where very early on you get an item that can teleport anything and anyone across sizable distances. With a lot of hidden items and areas being based around teleporting yourself to various alcoves and across seemingly impassable chasms)
The new Divinity title being worked on by Larian has potential to innovate, but my guess is that it'll stick to the formula of rehashing the same old genre that they've been doing since Original Sin 1. (Even with talks about it having "More depth and breadth" than any of their prior games... I'll take that to mean they might actually finish making an Act 3 for once in their lives)
Can we please have more games that just let me make choices or mistakes and continue on without a "game over" screen or being told I'm not allowed to do something?
Of course we can. This isn't a particularly hard thing to accomplish. It's not, nor ever has been a resource restraint like having actual divergent paths.
All it requires is to stop using "Essential" markers on items and characters.
But the crux of it, is we have this tag by design. As video games made it to mainstream appeal, they had to start to cater to the lowest common denominator. Those people who will skip through dialogues, attack every NPC and ignore any references to key items.
Thus they started to use "Essential" markers and methods of guiding players who's IQ rivals a bag of rocks so that they can actually play and enjoy the game. By foolproofing the systems so that everyone can get through the story.
Not having these things doesn't make the game have any more freedom. You're not suddenly doing anything different without them. You just have the potential to brick your playthrough and make it so you cannot progress the story. Which is no different to if you just simply... Didn't go and do the story stuff.
It's like in CP2077, I generally don't go meet up with Takemura when he calls sometime after Tom's Diner. This means I don't progress the story. I instead go and work on a lot of other stuff like the Panam and Judy mission lines as well as various gigs and NCPD stuff (I will also do some of Dogtown too)
It's no different if I was able to kill Takemura at Tom's Diner. Only after I did all the other stuff the game has to offer, I'd just have to stop playing that playthrough because I wouldn't be able to progress the story. I have no more freedom than if I just ignored him.
As unlike proper divergent paths, it's not as if simply being able to kill essential NPC's just creates a new alternate path through the story that simply bypasses that character's involvement. No, you just get artificially locked at the point where you were supposed to interact with them. Just like if you play Skyrim and console command away an NPC's essential status to kill them.
In regards to the OP, I think the most likely thing we'll see is more indie titles that lack the handholding of markers, waypoints and gallons upon gallons of "Yellow paint"
It was a thing yonks ago... For example, Morrowind. It wouldn't give you any indicators about where objectives are. You'd just get a long winded description of where to find something and then you'd have to go explore.
We occasionally see some games incorporate this lack of indication (For example, Elden Ring provided no markers - Or literally any other information - About where to go to progress NPC quests). But such things tend to be received negatively by most.
To be honest, it's not even particularly immersive either. Just like the stupid incomplete maps that protagonists seem to find themselves with that magically fill in when you've reached a new area. Realistically, you'd have a map of the region because they would be readily available and when you ask people about where to find something, they'd mark it on your map.
Not unlike real life before GPS became widely available...
Totally agree!
Outside of shiny graphics, mocap and voice acting, BG3 did nothing ground-breaking compared to existing cRPGs. Pathfinder Wrath Of The Rigtheous being on top, for me when it come to choices & consequences, and by a very long shot.
I believe what's happening here is bias based on finally exhausting the number and comination of options over that many playthroughs. The game does not account for absolutely every combination race, class, skillset, dialogue encounter, or imaginable scenario in existence -- in a sense, it's not a true replacement for a living DM that's very good at adapting to players' choices in real-time. But it comes closer to that sort of experience than any other game I've ever played since the 1980s by an extremely wide margin.
Especially the argument that Larian's other games are more robust in their choice/consequence is, I would say, empirically untrue. Divine Divinity 1/2 and Beyond Divinity allowed for a lot of character development freedom insofar as mixing classes and abilities, but their stories were wholly linear. Dragon Commander was not even an RPG, but more of an RTS/Action with a few light RPG elements thrown in. Divinity: OS 1/2 added both class/ability freedom, ability to choose henchmen, and a lot of environmental creativity for combat, but the stories were almost wholly linear. I would argue, strongly, that in D:OS1 the storyline was only slightly branching insofar as you could do certain things in any order, but that came at the cost of extreme lack of coherency in the storyline, overall. (To be totally fair here, I can't judge D:OS2 too strongly, as I've only ever fiddled with it and never played it all the way through. It did seem like it improved on pretty much everything.)
If we take other games prior to BG3 that were lauded for their freedom and player agency, nothing comes close to the sheer number of options that BG3 offers while also providing a focused, clear narrative that also adapts to those same choices. Importantly, I'm not denying the other games what they do well, nor am I saying that other games did not do certain things better than BG3. I'm arguing that none of them offer the nuance, range, or sheer number of choice/consequence situations that BG3 offers. Going back to the beginnings here:
vs. older "sandbox" titles like Rogue/NetHack, The Magic Candle, Ultima I-IV, Zork, or Robinson's Requiem:
These games offered tons of freedom with character creation, open worlds, party composition, and the ability to complete goals in different orders. However, the freedom was limited to different ways that you could fail, not succeed. Normally, there was only one correct way to do things, and the player had total agency to mess that up any number of ways before finally figuring out what they needed to do after endless reloads.
vs. 90s RPGs like Fallout 1-2, Baldur's Gate 1-2, Rage of Mages 1-2, TES: Arena and Daggerfall, Chrono Trigger, or Final Fantasy Tactics:
They gave players tons of options involving how to build characters or various ways to accomplish certain, singular goals. They also added the ability to engage with optional content, essentially "side quests," that were not necessary for completing the main objectives of the game. However, each of these choice/consequence sequences existed in isolation, affecting only that portion of the game, and perhaps a detail at the end. Some games created various "endgame states" that would tweak what sort of ending (cinematics, storyboards, etc.) players saw. From what I remember, only Chrono Trigger actually offered definitively different endgame situations, but the trigger sequences for different endings often boiled down to singular options (killed this character, completed this side-quest, triggered the ending at this point, etc.) This is very different to how later games would handle things. And it was rare for games to do this.
vs. early 2000s games like Deus Ex, Thief 1-3, Morrowind-Oblivion, Fable 1-2, KoTOR, The Witcher, Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 1:
We now see much more detailed environments, largely 3D, but gameplay is largely unchanged from the 90s. Few advancements are made in choice/consequence, and they largely work the same way as before. Isolated moments where key choices can be made that will later affect a single detail: dialogue choice, combat ability, optional side quest becoming available, or a change to the endgame cutscene/storyboard. But things are stil one-off. I make this choice; this character will leave my party. I use this magic crystal; the character will gain a special spell. I fail to complete this side-quest; something bad will happen during the closing cinematic.
vs. later 2010s games (with some overlap here) like Dragon Age 2-Inquisition, Mass Effect 2-3, KoTOR 2, The Witcher 2-3, Dishonored, Detroit: Become Human, Life Is Strange:
Now we finally begin to come to it. I was super excited by especially non-RPG games like Detroit and Life is Strange because they were finally allowing the player's choices to let a story emerge rather than justifying how different choices resulted in the same, singular ending. Part of it was technical limitations, possibly, as we hadn't yet advanced to 64-bit processing as a universal standard yet, and part of it was, what I strongly believe based on the work I was doing in the industry at that point, a firm belief by developers that putting that level of choice/consequence into a game that also involved robust RPG mechanics would simply not be manageable. Things were nudged forward by certain titles. Some games would offer definitively different pathways to the endgame, but they would be limited to gated choices at key moments, and then the player would be locked into that route for a singular ending. Once the route was chosen, gameplay was inherently linear, with choice/consequence being what it had always been -- oriented on singular, often arbitrary details. Not core to the outcome of the gameplay and narrative experience. Most of these choices would either result in items, weapons, or combat abilities. Not outcomes.
Take TW3 as a perfect example. I feel that CDPR's games were a bit more linear, mechanically, than many others. I'd also say this was the right choice, because rather than having 6 different outcomes for a given scenario, the player might have 2, but they were delivered with such narrative impact that either outcome felt nuanced, grounded, and impactful. A reliance on story-telling over player agency, and it worked beautifully. It created continuity in both character development and world building. And that's still a perfectly valid and effective approach. I don't think it will ever truly be gone.
But no other game in history has accomplished what Baldur's Gate 3 does. We'll take just the first part of Act I into account. Massive spoilers, obviously, so:
Let's talk about the possible outcomes for just the Druid's Grove and the Goblin Camp -- hang the initial options on the shore, the whole Mal sequence, the other two villages, the knolls and Zhentarim "traders" with their locked box, the marsh area with "Auntie," the various options for the Will/Karlach situation, meeting Raphael for the first time, the different possibilties with the owlbear cub, and the numerous ways the bridge incident with the Githyanki can play out. We'll just skip all that Act I stuff.
You have the option of:
Siding with the refugees
Siding with druids.
Siding with the goblins.
Siding with the refugees and betraying them.
Siding with the druids and betraying them.
Siding with the goblins and betraying them.
Siding with no one and just moving on, ignoring the whole situation.
Various outcomes based on what you choose:
I can encourage the refugees to head to Baldur's Gate now or slaughter them in the grove, which will then let me side with Kahga and go murder Halsin at the goblin camp.
I can refuse to help Kahga, undermine her authority, and side with the refugees. I can then rescue Halsin from the goblin camp and eventually expose Kahga as a Shadow Druid.
I can help them complete the ritual or not.
I can rescue and free the goblin prisoner, Sazza, and use her influence in several bits. Or I could just use a spell to read her mind directly in conversation and gain much of the same info that way. I can let her be murdered in her in the cage then use speak to the dead to get much of the same information. Or I can murder her myself, resulting in her refusing to talk to me if summoned again, which means I can just transform my appearance with a spell and use speak to the dead again to fool her ghost.
I can head straight to the goblin camp and attack it head on.
I can sneak around the sides and tactically thin the numbers.
I can walk straight in and use my "True Soul" status to get inside.
I can kill just the three leaders, potentially rescuing Halsin first to assist, and then escape.
I can gain the mark of the Absolute or not.
I can join with Minthara and help her to take control.
I can truly join the goblins and attack the grove with Minthara on our side.
I can pretend to join the goblins, steal the battle plans, then go back to the grove and help to defend it, fighting that same battle on the other side but with Minthara as a boss.
I can skip the entire sequence by just escaping into the mountain passes or into the Underdark through the secret entrance in the Goblin Camp and leave everyone to their fate.
And none of this includes all of the other things that tie in with the Grove vs. Goblin camp scenario that pop up throughout the rest of Act I -- all of which are essentially completely optional but will directly affect gameplay for the remainder of the game and tie into what is or is not possible throughout the rest of the act and other, later act scenarios. Examples:
The owlbear cub arriving in camp
Minthara's story and whether or not she becomes a party member in Act 2.
Halsin's story.
Lae'Zel's story.
Raphael and Mal in Acts 2 and 3.
The Teifling refugees and scenarios in Acts 2 and 3.
Auntie Ethel and the hags in Act 3. Not to mention the "eye" option.
Whether Dammon survives, meaning Karlach will be permantently affected.
Will's story and transformation, which plays all the way to Act 3 and affects his outcome with Karlach.
Whether Florrik lives or dies. (While minimal impact, it's still a nice touch later in the game.)
The entire Underdark sequence, discovering Omeluum in the Myconid Grove, the Adamantine Forge, and the whole Ironhand Gnome vs. Duergar situation which carries over into Act 3.
And within each and every one of those scenarios and encounters will ALSO be countless options to use race, class, abilities, certain items, and/or past choices to affect dialogue, combat encounters, the environmnet, and open up potential outcomes and future opportunities that would not otherwise exist.
To argue that virtually any other game has even come close to this level of interactivity, meshing of game mechanics, and ongoing influence over the whole game experience is simply nonsensical. Most entire games do not offer the number of actual choices that just the druid grove vs. goblin camp section of Act 1 offers. More than likely, people have simply not seen the sheer number of things possible, or they've played over it so much that the reality has become skewed due to complacency.
Totally agree!
Outside of shiny graphics, mocap and voice acting, BG3 did nothing ground-breaking compared to existing cRPGs. Pathfinder Wrath Of The Rigtheous being on top, for me when it come to choices & consequences, and by a very long shot.
I looked at this one a little. A bit "everything and the kitchen sink" for my tastes. The dialogue drove me up the wall. I had the same reaction to Kingdom Come: Deliverance, too. Not saying it's a bad game, but the dialogue was like nails on a chalkboard.
So, I've never played either of those, though I know they're largely lauded as having tremendous amounts of player agency throughout.
This is good! That's precisely what I'm talking about with more studios developing systems for doing this type of branching narrative and adaptable endgames. Not every game will benefit from it, and I think there will always be a place for games that rely on excellent, linear narratives.
What I hope to see are games that decide to follow more moment-to-moment choice and consequence that does not rely on one foregone conclusion and continuously incorporates whatever choices are made into all future choices.
I'd also like to put the sheer number of options and where they come from to a factual, empirical test. Meaning, I'd like to see a complete breakdown of every dialogue option, skill modifier, alternate way of completing the same quest to whatever number of potential outcomes as a tree, then compare it side-by-side with any other game. I will bet the farm that absolutely no other game, including these, even comes remotely close. Sure, other titles may offer enough to feel rewarding and open-ended, but what BG pulled off was likely record-setting by a wide margin.
And, remaining fully connected to the OP, here, I think that's massive weight toward future titles going in that direction instead of using the tired "essential character" or, "You cannot do that at this time," message.
Except this has been my experience from the very first playthrough.
That I spent subsequent playthroughs desperately trying to find the nuance and options that people were tauting about the game, only to be met with the realization it simply doesn't exist doesn't mean I am biased due to having found everything after many playthroughs.
The game does not account for ANY race. Class. Skillset or Dialogue encounters.
Which is why I laugh so hard when you keep bringing this up.
Literally, outside of a handful of class specific dialogues (Which are meaningless fluff as they don't change anything aside from maybe what stat is used for a skill check), the game acknowledges NOTHING about your character. With the game actively ignoring prior dialogues constantly.
Many other games at least account for Race, but BG3 doesn't.
Then you clearly haven't played any CRPG's. This genre is literally the bread and butter for player freedom. Which is why BG3 doesn't stand out in the slightest.
If we take other games prior to BG3 that were lauded for their freedom and player agency, nothing comes close to the sheer number of options that BG3 offers while also providing a focused, clear narrative that also adapts to those same choices.
"Clear narrative that also adapts to those same choices"
... Did we play the same BG3? The games narrative never adapts to your choices.
Even its "Evil" path is absolute dog water compared to literally every other game to feature an evil path. Like even old classics like BG1 and KotOR are better at providing an alternate path.
Importantly, I'm not denying the other games what they do well, nor am I saying that other games did not do certain things better than BG3. I'm arguing that none of them offer the nuance, range, or sheer number of choice/consequence situations that BG3 offers.
Except plenty of them do. BG3 is nothing new or unique. It is barely average when it comes to CRPG's due to how development resources were shifted towards the most popular routes.
Again, BG3 is just pushing the genre into the mainstream. Nothing more.
I will bet the farm that absolutely no other game, including these, even comes remotely close. Sure, other titles may offer enough to feel rewarding and open-ended, but what BG pulled off was likely record-setting by a wide margin.
Just my opinion and having played over 1,500 hours on both games, I'd say you would likely to lose your bet...
In BG3, a most of choices or outcomes feels quite inconsequential at the end of the day. While in Pathfinder, even a little dialogue choice with a random character which seems insignificant, could have serious consequences dozen hours later.
Little example :
At the very beginning of the game (few minutes^^) there is a dialogue in which you have to make a little choice. It seems insignificant and just here to add some flavor to roleplay your character... But in reality, it could open or lock one of the several possible endings.
Don't get me wrong, I don't say BG3 is bad or mid, it's awesome. But when it comes to choices & consequences, it don't brings something new or ground-breaking to its genre.
Except this has been my experience from the very first playthrough.
That I spent subsequent playthroughs desperately trying to find the nuance and options that people were tauting about the game, only to be met with the realization it simply doesn't exist doesn't mean I am biased due to having found everything after many playthroughs.
The game does not account for ANY race. Class. Skillset or Dialogue encounters.
Which is why I laugh so hard when you keep bringing this up.
Literally, outside of a handful of class specific dialogues (Which are meaningless fluff as they don't change anything aside from maybe what stat is used for a skill check), the game acknowledges NOTHING about your character. With the game actively ignoring prior dialogues constantly.
Many other games at least account for Race, but BG3 doesn't.
Then you clearly haven't played any CRPG's. This genre is literally the bread and butter for player freedom. Which is why BG3 doesn't stand out in the slightest.
"Clear narrative that also adapts to those same choices"
... Did we play the same BG3? The games narrative never adapts to your choices.
Even its "Evil" path is absolute dog water compared to literally every other game to feature an evil path. Like even old classics like BG1 and KotOR are better at providing an alternate path.
Except plenty of them do. BG3 is nothing new or unique. It is barely average when it comes to CRPG's due to how development resources were shifted towards the most popular routes.
Again, BG3 is just pushing the genre into the mainstream. Nothing more.
Just my opinion and having played over 1,500 hours on both games, I'd say you would likely to lose your bet...
In BG3, a most of choices or outcomes feels quite inconsequential at the end of the day. While in Pathfinder, even a little dialogue choice with a random character which seems insignificant, could have serious consequences dozen hours later.
Little example :
At the very beginning of the game (few minutes^^) there is a dialogue in which you have to make a little choice. It seems insignificant and just here to add some flavor to roleplay your character... But in reality, it could open or lock one of the several possible endings.
Don't get me wrong, I don't say BG3 is bad or mid, it's awesome. But when it comes to choices & consequences, it don't brings something new or ground-breaking to its genre.
Well, I'll agree to completely and utterly disagree on every possible level allowed by physical reality and quantum physics throughout the potential multiverse. (I think that covers it. )
To say that BG doesn't incorporate specific pathways reliant on race/class is just incorrect. Right off the bat:
Being drow of any sort means you can, for example, gain complete cooperation from all of the goblins in the blighted village, automatically free Barcus, and will offer unique dialogue options throughout the the game, especially when conversing with other drow...or spiders... (Talk to Dhourn as a female drow, for example. Easy mode.)
Being a Tiefling opens up a lot of unique dialogue options with other tieflings, especially in Act 1.
Go to the creche as a Githyanki character, and you'll have a completely different experience with numerous different characters. Not to mention the ongoing humor about your character being unfamiliar with various things about Fearun.
If you're a gnome, you have a whole bunch of additional stuff you can engage with in the Underdark and Baldur's Gate.
As either a gnome, dwarf, or halfling you have the option of getting into certain locations that are too small for other characters to fit through, alleviating a lot of lock-picking or door kicking that would otherwise be needed.
As a paladin or druid, you have numerous options throughout the game to intervene and automatically resolve situations that are not available to other classes.
As any sort of magic user, the same.
With high enough perception, sometimes only achievable by a rogue or a spell, you can detect and unlock various little things from time to time (like a certain bovine impersonator, for example.) Lots of this throughout the entire game.
As a bard, there are numerous times where you can use music to affect unique outcomes in encounters. (Not referring to combat -- I'm talking about key dialogue moments and situational things that are available only to bard characters.)
I'm not even going to go into how many unique things happen as the Dark Urge, and how meaningful that character choice is to the whole series of games.
I think...you may have just missed it! All of it was very seamlessly integrated, but 100% not available to characters of other races or classes.
Most games in the past (and I have played virtually all well-known RPGs since the 1980s...and a whole lot of other ones that many people may have never even heard of...) only offer a handful of key moments where making a choice or being a certain type of character will affect anything at all. Normally, those "meaningful" choices will be available to all characters, regardless of who they are or what choices they made in the past. Commonly, other options are throw-away twists on dialogue that have no actual impact on the game or outcome whatsoever. BG3 is the only game I've ever played that offered so much consistent choice with both immediate and long-term consequences, non-stop, from the beginning until the end.
Not all of them are wide-sweeping, whole-game-altering things, but we're back to "the journey" not "the destination." For me, it's not about the stuff I get or who lives/gets killed, it's the how and why constantly being qualified. It's being able to walk away from an entire questline without feeling like I'm losing something. It's about being able to remain true to the vision of my character, and nothing will ever really interrupt that or force me to do anything a certain way -- least of all, in a way that would be out of character. BG3 always has clever, if not wholly exclusive, pathways available at virtually every, single turn, large or small.
But, yes, you still deal with the Goblin Camp ---> Underdark / creche ---> shadowblight and Moonrise Towers ---> Nightsong / Emperor reveal ---> Gortash / Orin stuff ---> final encounter. That's the linear part, but the pathways, side-trails, and optional content, not to mention then number of different ways you can handle each individual thing, is insane. To me, that's the essence of roleplaying vs. adventure games.
But, to each their own.
(I may have to give Pathfinder more of a chance.)
_______________
And I did tangent there quite a bit. On-topic, I argue this is proof that all sorts of crazy options like this are totally doable. No need for invincible characters or games that let you know it's now impossible to progress. There's always a sensible way for things to unfold. It may simply be more challenging, or certain pathways will close. ("Oh, great! You killed our netrunner! Now the only way in is through the high-security area of Arasaka Tower! Go back to the car and get the other bag of ammo, fool! Go!")
Yes, maybe you should
You will see, there are more consequences about your choices than there is in BG3. Like I said, in BG3 it's mostly flavour dialogue lines or just different ways to resolve situations which will always ends in the same way no matter what (a bit like lifepath unique dialogue lines in Cyberpunk).
And yes, playing as a drow is probably the most impactful race compared to others. I didn't play Githyanki so I can't say. But I played Tiefling right after my drow playthrough and well...it was very disppointing.
-----
Back on topic, not sure how it could being done in action RPG like The Witcher or Cyberpunk. I don't remember any action RPG offering what cRPG offer in term of role playing, choices, consequences and story branching.
I think doing it for something as narrative-focused as Cyberpunk or The Witcher would certainly require there to be a version of the game written with "crazy mass murderer" in mind for the player character. Or, in other words, the "short, short version" of the main quest line where all story and dialogue has more or less been removed.
So, say, three acts. Players meet potentially 5 "plot-critical" NPCs per act. If a player character immediately shoots each one of them dead upon meeting them for the first time, some scenario would execute that immediately leads the player to the next "plot-critical" NPC that would logically be in line. (I guess the penalty for doing that would be the game taking only 2 hours to finish and you'd have to defeat the endgame content at level 3?)
But! -- if that approach to the game were completely fleshed out and functional, building up all the other quest material from there would retain the failsafe scenarios. Setting aside the "crazy mass murderer" player character, a more engaged player character could still kill any "plot-critical" NPC for more valid, in-game reasons at any point. The game would already have that potential scenario accounted for and allow the player to progress to the next section.
_______________
My other approach to this would be no single, main quest. But rather, different faction questlines would be, in and of themselves, the pathways to the endgame. I'd use the rule of 3.
3 main factions.
3 main NPCs, one for each faction.
The player character essentially assumes the role of the "Main NPC" for one faction, based on choice. Of course, all names are just placeholders to outline the structure:
The Crushers are run by Doh.
The Eagles are run by Rey.
The Shadows are run by Mi.
All factions want the Great Foozle for their own ends. Each faction has it's own backstory and reason for fighting the other factions. Each faction wants to do something totally different with the Great Foozle.
If I join the Crushers, I'm given a quest line that creates the story of one who eventually decides the fate of the Crushers. In my version of the game, "Doh" does not exist. I will essentially become "Doh." I'm now free to pursue the story of the Crushers and decide how my character deals with Rey and Mi. Perhaps I kill each of them in a big boss battle. Perhaps I ally with one. Perhaps I find a way to unify all three of us. Or anything in between. In the end, I get a unique perspective on the Big Foozle, what it means, and how it all ended.
If I join the Eagles, however, I get a totally different pathway through the game in which I become "Rey." Doh is now actually in the game as the main character of the Crushers again, and the same scenarios apply, but in such a way as I get to see the Eagle's version of events and their motivations in more detail.
Something like that would be essentially unbreakable, because there would be no one outcome. There would be a set number of endgame outcomes:
Crushers win all.
Eagles win all.
Shadows win all.
Crushers + Eagles destroy Shadows.
Shadows + Crushers destroy Eagles.
Eagles + Shadows destroy Crushers.
Crushers, Eagles, and Shadows unify. Everyone wins.
Crushers, Eagles, and Shadows are all destroyed. Armageddon ending.
That's it. So, no matter what choices the player makes, no matter who lives or dies, it's always on the pathway to one of those endings.
The magic comes in with the storytelling. Three distinct backstories, three distinct cultures, three distinct belief structures, etc. Each pathway is a take on the reality of the "Great Foozle," whether that is an actual object of some sort, control over some city or region, a critical resource, a race to discover something, etc. It's a way of exploring worldbuilding, character arcs, and interpretations without limiting the player to a set plot and encourages multiple diverse playthroughs to get the "whole story."
I can't foresee any need to create "essential characters" or "restricted zones" if using a formula like that for the narrative.
Could it just because of well... money? More than anything else?
Because from what I know, most of players play their games only once. So when studio start to invest dozens millions if not hundreds, maybe they prefer to make the most of it and avoid creating content that most of players will never experience.
Let's take BG3 for example, if an "average" player only play the game juste once, the amont of content he will never exeprience is quite crazy.
In BG3, how many dialogue lines who required a lot of work (and money) an "average" player will never hear unless replaying the game several times... a shit ton.
I remember a dev at Owlcat saying that if they had to fully voice Rogue Trader, it would have cost more than develloping the game itself...
For me, that's where BG3 is cutting edge in the cRPG genre... Because of BG3 massive success, Larian prouve that investing a lot of money to create a ton of content that most players will likely not experience at all, is not a lost, is not a waste, but it is a plus.
I don't want to open up the whole BG3 debate again, but I do want to address this one part on the conceptual/design level.
The argument you highlight has been a critical factor in avoiding games that branch too strongly, but again, I think BG3 shows just how practical and effective it is as a player-engagement approach. And the ultimate effect is replayability, which more than makes up for the fact that most players will never see everything.
I'd propose again what I've proposed for years and years (using the same concept as I described above) -- make the individual playthroughs shorter.
Rather than a sprawling adventure that may take 100+ hours to complete, narrow playthroughs down to an experience that takes 10-20 hours to complete. Perhaps structure things in like NG+ or class / ability unlock mechanics that require multiple playthroughs. In other words, a constant sense of progression and achievement for the player, coupled with extremely different narratives, pathways, and experiences in each playthrough.
By doing so, building incredibly complex trees of interactivity, extraordinarily unique storylines, set-piece moments, and very diverse mechanics (e.g. combat vs. stealth vs. exploration vs. magic vs. diplomacy, etc.) would now be much more manageable because the game only needs to get to a 10-20 hour stage to resolve -- not a 100 hour stage. Or, rather than building in all the mechanics that would be needed to handle various gameplay styles across a huge, sprawling story line, those mechanics would now be reserved for concise, individual, compartmentalized story lines that are custom-built to highlight a certain gameplay style.
In other words, take "Fighter vs. Mage vs. Thief" as basic gameplay styles. The "quest" might be to obtain the special item. The entire story could now be completely re-written for each class. Rather than a 100 hour experience that lets me play as a fighter, or a mage, or a thief -- I get a 20 hour story with unique characters, locations, and combat encounters specifically built for the Fighter. A totally different 20 hour story with different characters, locations, and specific gameplay encounters that are focused on the Mage character. And a third 20 hour version with unique elements, from beginning to end, that focuses on Thief gameplay.
And yet, they're all different versions of the same "main story," just told from completely unique perspectives. Essentially, a single event, but you get to see it from multiple different points of view. There will be intersection points where the Thief, for example, would cross paths with either the Fighter or the Mage, looking at the same event from a now different lens, and gaining more understanding and world-building that way. Rather than journal entries or exposition dumps that often occur in a longer, more linear game, you get to fill in the gaps by living the actual events in a subsequent playthrough.
And the game is still 100 hours long. It's the same amount of world-building and character development as would occur in a single, 100 hour adventure. It's just re-structured into 20 hour "episodes" that re-tell the same story from extremely different points of view. (Essentially, a game version using the plot structure of something like Rashomon, Magnolia, or Sliding Doors.)
_______________
And, directly back to the OP -- I swear, this was not a tangent! -- there are no essential characters or required victories. Every playthrough is essentially a player opportunity to ask, "But what if this happened, instead?" The game would be specifically built for every success, every failure, every death, and every last-minute save to be a potential re-exploration of the main story. There is no "wrong" way to do anything, as everything always leads to a unique, exclusive ending.
We will all get what we want when they can mix the Bethesda concept of Radiant AI with and an AI "director" that can generate game content on the fly.
The Dev will write the story hooks and character motivations, but the game will make those digital actors in the game talk and make decisions based on the player and the emergent results of the systems.
Think of the way Todd wanted his Radiant AI to actually work. He did a demo of this with a girl and her dog where a series of events happen resulting in a small story just from the layered game systems. This demo may have been faked, who knows. But the idea presented that one small action of the player and the REACTING NPCs based on a set of personality stats in the game could create all sorts of events. The TECH of his time period is the only thing that stopped him from realizing that demo into Oblivion.
He talked about this again in the making of Skyrim, about how the "director" would see that you killed an NPC or a dragon did or whatever and then the brother NPC would take over in the quest. Again that did not get completed for the game. Still too much idea and too little tec.
I am not saying we are close, just that I can see this will happen as some point the same way I could see that a game like DOOM would be made 10 years later as I played the "3d" tank game battlefield in an arcade in the 80's. Hope I live long enough to play it. But I do not think it will be as long as 10 years...
Edit: you could see chucks of the system they were trying to make work in the CE. They did not get it to do all they wanted but it did do a lot other games could not or did not do at the time. And when I say "tec" I mean for the consumer hardware limits and time to get it done. We had computers and programs that "could" have done what they wanted back then but they found it was not practical as a game for 40? dollars.
That's not CDPR''s style, but I'd be okay with it if "break the game" means really "break the game". As in, being able to take actions that result in early termination of the game with a fail condition (such as insulting Vlaakith in BG3). I get annoyed at games that attempt to portray themselves as having that sort of flexibility, but then implement fail safes to eventually get the story back on track. And also, I would want an optional toggle to prevent the death of essential NPCs or loss of essential items.
I don't want to open up the whole BG3 debate again, but I do want to address this one part on the conceptual/design level.
The argument you highlight has been a critical factor in avoiding games that branch too strongly, but again, I think BG3 shows just how practical and effective it is as a player-engagement approach. And the ultimate effect is replayability, which more than makes up for the fact that most players will never see everything.
I'd propose again what I've proposed for years and years (using the same concept as I described above) -- make the individual playthroughs shorter.
Rather than a sprawling adventure that may take 100+ hours to complete, narrow playthroughs down to an experience that takes 10-20 hours to complete. Perhaps structure things in like NG+ or class / ability unlock mechanics that require multiple playthroughs. In other words, a constant sense of progression and achievement for the player, coupled with extremely different narratives, pathways, and experiences in each playthrough.
By doing so, building incredibly complex trees of interactivity, extraordinarily unique storylines, set-piece moments, and very diverse mechanics (e.g. combat vs. stealth vs. exploration vs. magic vs. diplomacy, etc.) would now be much more manageable because the game only needs to get to a 10-20 hour stage to resolve -- not a 100 hour stage. Or, rather than building in all the mechanics that would be needed to handle various gameplay styles across a huge, sprawling story line, those mechanics would now be reserved for concise, individual, compartmentalized story lines that are custom-built to highlight a certain gameplay style.
In other words, take "Fighter vs. Mage vs. Thief" as basic gameplay styles. The "quest" might be to obtain the special item. The entire story could now be completely re-written for each class. Rather than a 100 hour experience that lets me play as a fighter, or a mage, or a thief -- I get a 20 hour story with unique characters, locations, and combat encounters specifically built for the Fighter. A totally different 20 hour story with different characters, locations, and specific gameplay encounters that are focused on the Mage character. And a third 20 hour version with unique elements, from beginning to end, that focuses on Thief gameplay.
And yet, they're all different versions of the same "main story," just told from completely unique perspectives. Essentially, a single event, but you get to see it from multiple different points of view. There will be intersection points where the Thief, for example, would cross paths with either the Fighter or the Mage, looking at the same event from a now different lens, and gaining more understanding and world-building that way. Rather than journal entries or exposition dumps that often occur in a longer, more linear game, you get to fill in the gaps by living the actual events in a subsequent playthrough.
And the game is still 100 hours long. It's the same amount of world-building and character development as would occur in a single, 100 hour adventure. It's just re-structured into 20 hour "episodes" that re-tell the same story from extremely different points of view. (Essentially, a game version using the plot structure of something like Rashomon, Magnolia, or Sliding Doors.)
_______________
And, directly back to the OP -- I swear, this was not a tangent! -- there are no essential characters or required victories. Every playthrough is essentially a player opportunity to ask, "But what if this happened, instead?" The game would be specifically built for every success, every failure, every death, and every last-minute save to be a potential re-exploration of the main story. There is no "wrong" way to do anything, as everything always leads to a unique, exclusive ending.
I get the wish for “breakable” quests, but that’s basically a different design goal than an authored CDPR story.
Best compromise: add an optional “Immersive/Hardcore” toggle = fewer markers + fewer safeguards (and yes, you can brick quests), while keeping the default mode story-friendly for everyone else.
...) but I was able to play through BG3 around 5 times before I stopped encountering new things constantly. Even after about 20 runs (not all complete,) I'm still encountering stuff I've never seen before. That's an insane level of interactivity from the world, and there is clearly a system behind it that drastically outdoes even other "branching games" from the past (Detroit, Life Is Strange, etc.)
