36 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

The entirety of Alpha Protocol. Every choice in that game feels like it matters and has consequences.

 

My runner up would be the The Witcher 2 and it's branching storylines depending on whether you ally with Roche or Iorveth.

[ObserverStatus]

That moment when you realize you killed the wrong person at the end of The Walking Dead Season 2

[Clover Rider]

In CK2 you can kill babies to get a throne and become a baby killer.

[Mr.House]

At last getting to embrace Yens busom in TW3.

[Simfam]

In CK2 you can kill babies to get a throne and become a baby killer.

 

No wonder you're so terrible.

[Vroom Vroom]

Playing spin the bottle and having it land on Fred Jones Rider. I don't want to kiss him, he kills babies. 

[Simfam]

Arcanum

---> Slaughter a whole city to join the dark elves. Every other elf will attack you. (Game had so much reactivity)

--> You could literally resurrect anyone through necromancy and question them.

 

Magic was so OP

 

I fcuked the boss up with a level 1 spell spammin'

 

God that game was good.

[Han Shot First]

Arcanum

---> Slaughter a whole city to join the dark elves. Every other elf will attack you. (Game had so much reactivity)

--> You could literally resurrect anyone through necromancy and question them.

 

Magic was so OP

 

Great game.

 

I'd love to see a company pick that up and make a AAA sequel.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Iorveth and Roche choice from Witcher 2.

But for cumulative choice and consequence, where the player feels like they're in a story of their own making, you can't go past Alpha Protocol.

Special mention to the Fallout games too, seeing as it was Fallout 1 that pioneered the idea of choice and consequence as a key component of the roleplaying experience. While the consequences of many choices didn't have immediate impact on the story (superficial changes made in game and the consequences were rolled into the ending slides), every quest attempted to cater for roleplaying, giving you both moral choices and freedom of approach when possible, allowing you to tackle the world with your character's skill set and mindset. AKA roleplaying.

New Vegas took the same principles and rolled it into it's faction reputation systems in an attempt to make every quest feel relevant. The immediate consequences of many quests still felt light (reputation bumps, etc) but it still felt like it all mattered in the greater scheme of things.

Special mention to Gothic 3 as well. It had almost a proto-NV faction system, where most of the quests in the world came back to the cental conflicts. It also had similar levels of branching in the main quest, with 3 distinct and mutually exclusive paths. Now, the game's content, writing and story are not really compelling at all. But from a design and structure perspective, it is bloody impressive.

That said, I love games where reactivity comes through the natural interplay of mechanics as opposed to discrete story choices. Like if you kill kids in Fallout, you get a reputation for it and people hate you. They'll let you know you suck. And bounty hunters even come after you. But none of this is tied to any quest or decision chokepoint. It's just reactivity based on how you play.

Arcanum was particularly good at this IMO. While not as good, Divinity: Original Sin shows glimpses of this too.

Would also nominate the Geneforge games. Like the Fallout games, they attempt to make each quest involve narrative choice as well as freedom of approach. Unsurprisingly, it also ties it back to a faction system which revolves around the primary conflict and moral dilemma of the setting.

[Miss Golightly]

Alpha Protocol as a whole. As flawed as that game is, it has some crazy attention to detail when it comes to choices and consequences.