Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox · Rules

[Anotherbobhead]

I was entertaining the idea of making this into a blog post in my head, but figured I'd probably get a more interesting discussion going here. Anyway, how do you feel about consequence in games? I don't mean when you talk to that one guy and say LOL NO IM NOT GUNNA DO UR KWEST then on the next playthrough, go back and do it. I mean, saying no to that character and forcing yourself to live with that decision. Over the last 2 years, I've become increasingly fixated with getting high scores in shmups and other arcade-style games, and the only way to do it is to just get as far as you can on one continue, then start from scratch if you die. Fortunately/Unfortunately, this has also impacted the way that I play almost every game, but the most interesting take I've heard on this is a Far Cry 2 player experimenting with Permadeath. There's also games like nethack or even the recent Demon's Souls that make consequence a core gameplay mechanic. Anyway, give your feedback, and if you couldn't tell, I totally love the idea of not being able to go back and undo decisions I make, even if it does eliminate alternative quest lines.

[Sired Skank]

In theory, I like this idea because it makes for a different play experience every time. The problem is that most of the games I've come across that do this are lengthy RPGs that I don't really intend to play through again in their entirety. One of the worst examples of this is in Final Fantasy XII, where if you want the best weapon in the game, you have to not open some chests which are just scattered throughout the game with no indication of this consequence whatsoever. If you've opened any of them, the only way to get it is from some other chest which only has like a 1% chance of producing it (and a couple of minutes per try, IIRC). Other FF games have situations like this, but instead of giving you some kind of choice, you just miss the item (or some kind of equivalent) entirely.

I realize, though, that this is probably a bad example of what you're talking about. If the game gives a choice between multiple things instead a single thing that you merely lose the chance to get in the entire playthrough (often with no New Game + option), I'm more apt to accept it. I might even prefer it, if I find the right kind of game.

[Public Relations Dreadnought]

Kiwi likes to try to do everything at one point. If you mean don't do something and never do it in any subsequent playthrough then no, that's stupid. That stuff is part of the content Kiwi payed for.

[Arkas]

2 games come to mind:
Mass Effect 2
SW: The Old Republic

End of story on my part.

[LoC]

When I think of consequence, I think of games like Knights Of The Old Republic which have a good/bad allignment, which is chosen depending on your decisions and actions, with some choosing to do all good things, some who make as many evil decisions as possible, and those that fall somewhere in between the two.