"Fake" C&C

[JarlFrank]

I've seen this term thrown about by VD and 1eyedking and maybe some others too in the Witcher 2 thread(s) we got here, and some of the uses of this term seem quite strange to me. So, what does make a choice "fake"? When is a choice a real choice, when is it a fake choice?

I'd call the typical Bioware choice a fake one: where you can pick different responses, but in the end you'll have to agree to do the quest BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO and then your character just says yes (but he might only do it reluctantly if you chose to say no first; doing the quest is so important that he can't say no and agrees anyway though, lolz). Or the ones where you do a quest, and then in the end can just choose to either take money or take nothing, which is not much of a choice because there's next to no consequence (except for getting gold or not).

Now, I've seen it used in concern to things such as ending up fighting people from faction X or faction Y. It's supposed to be a "fake" choice because all that changes is the uniform of the enemy you fight. So? It's still a choice and has a consequence, and I wouldn't call this fake. Of course, you end up doing the same thing - fighting people - but it's different people, and it also has an impact on the story since you killed all the people of faction X/Y and led faction Y/X to victory.

Same with calling choices that only affect story aspects "fake". Why is it a fake choice when the conequence is to either have a pogrom on non-humans in the city or to have a festive day because an enemy has been captured? That's a pretty drastic difference between the two things, and the consequence for the world is quite large.

Now, I see how some people might find this kind of consequence to be not enough, since it's not significant in gameplay. Something happens to characters and places in the world, but it won't be of a gameplay consequence because it doesn't open up new quests, change the future storyline much and you'll never visit that place in the gameworld afterwards anyway (like with the escape from prison part in Witcher 2 - if you free Aryan, he blows up the castle, if you free his mother, the castle isn't destroyed; this is only a "flavour" consequence since you'll never return to that place, but it's nevertheless a consequence).

So, why call them fake C&C? It's not fake if it has a consequence to what kind of ending slide you see. I'd rather call it "flavour" C&C than "fake" C&C.

DICKSCUSS!!

 

[pocahaunted]

I'd consider a choice as being fake, for example, whenever its consequences are very reduced in temporal scope.

 

[UserNamer]

Now, I've seen it used in concern to things such as ending up fighting people from faction X or faction Y. It's supposed to be a "fake" choice because all that changes is the uniform of the enemy you fight. So? It's still a choice and has a consequence, and I wouldn't call this fake. Of course, you end up doing the same thing - fighting people - but it's different people, and it also has an impact on the story since you killed all the people of faction X/Y and led faction Y/X to victory.



DICKSCUSS!!

In the witcher 2 chapter 3 there is a choice were the only thing that changes is the uniform of the enemies you fight. It is a fake choice because if you don't kill faction a, character y kills them for you. If you don't kill faction b, your bro does it single handedly (what a bro).

Regarding the rest of your post, I don't think they are fake choices (except maybe the one in my example and a few other in the witcher 2). It's just a different approach from having a non linear quest you can solve in multiple ways that you have to find on your own.

 

[MMXI]

Fake C&C to me is either:

a) When all paths lead to the same outcome.
b) When one path benefits a potential character and the other path doesn't at all.

An example of the former is different ways of saying "yes" when accepting a quest, when none of those different ways lead to different rewards after cashing in. An example of the latter is when one path leads to a reward (such as a sword) and the other path leads to nothing at all (only good for LARPers).

Now, real C&C is the choice between a 100 gold reward and a +1 reputation score, no matter what some faggots on here think. Real C&C isn't just world changing events like who controls a whole city or if the king of the land dies or not. In fact, with your example of some castle being closed off for access, that's fake C&C even though it's world changing because it has zero effect on your character's experience through the game.

Ultimately, if your statistics aren't either altered or tested in different ways due to a choice then it's a fake choice. Choosing between a new sword or an increase in reputation alters your statistics and thus it's a real choice with real consequences. Choosing between different factions leading to the same material reward is only real C&C if your character's statistics are tested while either making the decision or dealing with the consequences afterwards.

If you choose to fight for faction A over faction B, knowing that you will get exactly the same reward for doing so, it is only fake C&C if both choices lead to your character being tested in the same way. If faction A, for example, is easier to fight for if your character is a mage, while faction B is easier to fight for if your character is a fighter, then that's real C&C as different characters deal with the consequences in different ways. If both factions are identical, where members are merely wearing different uniforms, then your character will be tested in exactly the same way and thus all possible character types can make both decisions with the same difficulty and with the same outcome.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Here's the distinction I make: there is "narrative C&C" and "gameplay C&C." Narrative C&C is what you were calling flavor C&C, i.e. it changes the narrative but doesn't have much effect on gameplay. Lots of The Witcher choices are this kind, and I'm assuming that the same is true for The Witcher 2, though I haven't played it. But you know what else falls under that category? Fallout's ending slides.

Gameplay C&C also has a change in narrative, but brings with it changes to gameplay as well, like NPCs entering or leaving your party, or certain towns wanting to kill you. I'd say this is the superior form of C&C, but I like other kind just fine as well. Most games have a mixture of the two anyway.

 

[moraes]

Every choice is fake (illusion of choice) in a deterministic universe.

 

[Kraszu]

Now, I've seen it used in concern to things such as ending up fighting people from faction X or faction Y. It's supposed to be a "fake" choice because all that changes is the uniform of the enemy you fight. So? It's still a choice and has a consequence, and I wouldn't call this fake. Of course, you end up doing the same thing - fighting people - but it's different people, and it also has an impact on the story since you killed all the people of faction X/Y and led faction Y/X to victory.

It is a C&C, but to make it more important there should be gameplay differences between fighting against x or y. Lets strip it to basics, if both fractions would use the same weapons/armours etc. and if they would not really differ in they convictions for example they would both be just motivated by profit with no much difference in character or anything like that, then the C&C would be rather pointless so we have:
1)Gameplay differences.
2)Story differences in the broad sense of the world, different personalities that makes you choose one fraction over the other etc.

So, why call them fake C&C? It's not fake if it has a consequence to what kind of ending slide you see. I'd rather call it "flavour" C&C than "fake" C&C.

DICKSCUSS!!

Story C&C seem more fitting. Gameplay C&C, and story C&C seem to cover it all.

 

[Kraszu]

Every choice is fake (illusion of choice) in a deterministic universe.

lol nice trolling, but the point is that C&C is important to allow you to choose what you want to choose, and that isn't fake in the deterministic world, preferences work in deterministic universe. It makes the game more interesting if you have to plan, and yes planning can be a part of deterministic universe as well.

 

[MMXI]

I don't accept the validity of "real" story C&C not affecting the gameplay. All C&C has to affect the gameplay in order for it to be considered "real". Choosing between different material rewards such as items or statistical increases is a choice with real consequences that may affect your character's ability to perform further actions in the game. Choosing who becomes king of a nation even though you get the same shield as a reward for whomever you choose is real C&C if your character's statistics/equipment are tested/checked/used in different ways as a result. For example, if choosing one king results in a battle soon after, while choosing the other results in a thief attempting to steal 1000g gold from you when you next sleep, that's real C&C, as one tests your character's combat prowess while the other tests your character's awareness.

 

[Visbhume]

Here's the distinction I make: there is "narrative C&C" and "gameplay C&C." Narrative C&C is what you were calling flavor C&C, i.e. it changes the narrative but doesn't have much effect on gameplay. Lots of The Witcher choices are this kind, and I'm assuming that the same is true for The Witcher 2, though I haven't played it. But you know what else falls under that category? Fallout's ending slides.

Gameplay C&C also has a change in narrative, but brings with it changes to gameplay as well, like NPCs entering or leaving your party, or certain towns wanting to kill you. I'd say this is the superior form of C&C, but I like other kind just fine as well. Most games have a mixture of the two anyway.

If one aims for one particular narrative outcome, and has to choose carefully in order to achieve it, isn't that a form of gameplay? Narrative C&C *is* Gameplay C&C, provided the choices are non-obvious.

 

[MMXI]

Here's the distinction I make: there is "narrative C&C" and "gameplay C&C." Narrative C&C is what you were calling flavor C&C, i.e. it changes the narrative but doesn't have much effect on gameplay. Lots of The Witcher choices are this kind, and I'm assuming that the same is true for The Witcher 2, though I haven't played it. But you know what else falls under that category? Fallout's ending slides.

Gameplay C&C also has a change in narrative, but brings with it changes to gameplay as well, like NPCs entering or leaving your party, or certain towns wanting to kill you. I'd say this is the superior form of C&C, but I like other kind just fine as well. Most games have a mixture of the two anyway.

If one aims for one particular narrative outcome, and has to choose carefully in order to achieve it, isn't that a form of gameplay? Narrative C&C *is* Gameplay C&C, provided the choices are non-obvious.

And only one of those should be emphasised in a cRPG. The latter. Narrative choices with narrative consequences are great and all, but kind of suck in an RPG if the statistics of your characters are not tested when making them or suffering the consequences of them. In other words, narrative C&C has to include gameplay C&C in order for it to be well integrated into the RPG system. Otherwise you end up with just a game with a non-linear/branching story with RPG combat attached.

 

[Ruprekt]

but in the end you'll have to agree to do the quest BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO

I think that's fair enough if you're talking about the overall quest.

If my character is a more-than-human ubermensch they better be battling their fate/doom/destiny ... otherwise what's the point?

 

[CorpseZeb]

Some examples of, what could be called “fake C&C”, - “Titan Quest” where you can always redistribute points/rearrange your character in appropriate shrines and ME2, where at the end of game, you can also do the same. So no matter what you'll choose, because always you can correct, what you chose, latter. What worth is that sort of choice? Games aren't word-processors, they don't need “undo” function... saves are enough.

 

[aleph]

Some examples of, what could be called “fake C&C”, - “Titan Quest” where you can always redistribute points/rearrange your character in appropriate shrines and ME2, where at the end of game, you can also do the same. So no matter what you'll choose, because always you can correct, what you chose, latter. What worth is that sort of choice? Games aren't word-processors, they don't need “undo” function... saves are enough.

You can also do that in Witcher 2, at least once...

 

[CorpseZeb]

You can also do that in Witcher 2, at least once...

Oh, that's a pity, part of modern “you shall not frustrate THE GAMER" (of consequences HIS/HER choices) mythology, I guess.

Ps. At what moment of time exactly, games become "entertainment" thingy instead of "challenging" apparatus?

 

[Metro]

Now, I see how some people might find this kind of consequence to be not enough, since it's not significant in gameplay. Something happens to characters and places in the world, but it won't be of a gameplay consequence because it doesn't open up new quests, change the future storyline much and you'll never visit that place in the gameworld afterwards anyway (like with the escape from prison part in Witcher 2 - if you free Aryan, he blows up the castle, if you free his mother, the castle isn't destroyed; this is only a "flavour" consequence since you'll never return to that place, but it's nevertheless a consequence).

So, why call them fake C&C? It's not fake if it has a consequence to what kind of ending slide you see. I'd rather call it "flavour" C&C than "fake" C&C.

It's semantics. Just saying, oh it has a 'consequence' isn't enough. The consequence has to be meaningful. Fighting guys with blue shirts versus guys with red shirts isn't meaningful to me. Do you consider blowing up Raven Rock in Fallout 3 C&C? If you do blow it up, no more sweet Malcolm McDowell radio broadcasts. So now the C&C in FO3 is as good as the C&C in Witcher 2? Under such a loose definition you could argue there is C&C in World of Warcraft and I think we all know that is a laughable conclusion... but nevertheless it follows using your logic.

Now, real C&C is the choice between a 100 gold reward and a +1 reputation score, no matter what some faggots on here think.

See above.

Some examples of, what could be called “fake C&C”, - “Titan Quest” where you can always redistribute points/rearrange your character in appropriate shrines and ME2, where at the end of game, you can also do the same. So no matter what you'll choose, because always you can correct, what you chose, latter. What worth is that sort of choice? Games aren't word-processors, they don't need “undo” function... saves are enough.

You can also do that in Witcher 2, at least once...

In terms of C&C in character customization there pretty much was none in Witcher 1. You could faceroll those 'coin' talents and it really wouldn't make a significant difference in your character's game play.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Personally, I think there's way too much importance placed on C&C in RPG's here at the codex. The number of threads discussing it over the years here is staggering.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just a nice feature to have ("fake" or otherwise), rather than a defining feature. An RPG which provides enough character development options and some branching story elements (not strictly necessary either) implemented well, usually provides enough C&C for me.

 

[Crichton]

I would categorize any choice that looks like it will matter but doesn't as "fake". Examples:

-In Alpha Protocol, sparing the A-rab guy's life matters for 30 seconds until the bombs blow him up anyway.

-In the Witcher, you're given various options that the game implies will lead to Gerry becoming a knight of the whatever or settling down with the herbalist chick but neither of these can actually happen. When you get to the end of the quest lines, they just fizzle.

-In Dark Sun: Shattered Lands you can spare the life of this one Wyvern-raider with a sob-story, but he betrays you and you have to kill him anyway (or exploit a bug).

-In NWN2 and KotOR2 there are a bunch of times you can tell an NPC you don't want them in your party but they just won't take no for an answer.

-As above, in BG you can tell Imen to leave but she won't.

Choices that don't affect gameplay are a different matter entirely. I think those are both "real" and desirable.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

^ I wanted to write that but you beat me to it. This would be my definition of fake c and c aswell. I think such a narrow definition is very useful. It makes no sense to divide c&c into gameplay affecting and "fluff" ones and then argue which ones are better or which of them are "fake".

Many (most?) of the consequences in our beloved fallout were of the "fluff" type and just changed the ending slides AFTER the game.

 

[Haba]

Less of this

    |
Fake Choice
    |
Fake Choice
    |
Fake Choice
    |
  Choice
    |
   / \
  /   \
 /     \
End    End
 A      B

And more of this

           |
        Choice---------------Choice
       /      \                / \
      /        \              /   \
     |          |            /     \
     |          |           End    End
  Choice     Choice          E      F
    / \        /  \ 
   /   \      /    \
  |     |    |      | 
 End   End  End    End
  A     B    C      D

 

[sea]

Does "fake choice" include multiple options in solving a problem leading to the same result even if those options vary wildly? Think rescuing Tandi from the Khans: ultimately she gets back to Shady Sands (or dies), but the means you rescue her by can be quite different. Is this "fake" choice? "Gameplay" choice? Would it become "real" choice if NPCs made reference to the specific methods employed, or if one approach led to a completely new quest? We seem to be primarily focusing on dialogue choices here, which is all well and good, but I can think of very few games which have significant narrative consequences as the result of your gameplay decisions and style. At best you'll wind up with a "you sneaky bastard" line in a game like Alpha Protocol, but there's no real impact on anything beyond the player's ego.

I don't think "fake choice" is bad in and of itself. It's nearly required for RPGs to allow for active decision-making or participation on the player's part, and this demands multiple options, which naturally lead to choices. Fake choice is necessary given production demands, but the emotional impact of it cannot be understated; so long as it doesn't result in obvious but-thou-musting of the player, or forcing a single solution when there is ample opportunity for others (i.e. an NPC is invincible due to plot relevance, but a journal they keep can provide the same information), fake choices are a great way to give the player the illusion of freedom throughout the game, even though in reality there's only freedom in certain respects.

Obviously it's very hard to impossible to have a coherent dramatic story in a setting where the player's actions are prone to being 100% unpredictable, and while some players like that, most developers would rather deliver a slightly more stable and guaranteed experience. I imagine most players want that tailor-made feeling, as well, rather than the game glitching out because they slaughtered an entire town of quest-givers. For all people want to have complete freedom of actions, they also want cool set pieces, cutscenes, crowning moments of awesome, a story which is compelling, interesting and presented as such, etc. It's not an irreconcilable situation or a total contradiction to have both freedom and narrative, but it's simply beyond the bounds of most games to offer up quality to both camps of players. Fake choice is by far the best way of bridging that gap, so long as it's a sliding scale rather than a fixed on/off in degree, and not a crutch for sloppy design.

 

[Haba]

Ideally "true" choices would be a mix of both dialogue and actual gameplay. A good example being a character dying while in combat. Most of the time the player will simply reload and try as many times as it takes to actually get through the mission without losses, voiding the potential there. And often the game simply gives you a "game over" screen whenever a plot critical NPC dies.

Eien no Aselia achieved a decent compromise on this front, even if superficial. Plot critical NPC's still needed to survive, but side characters could die. No major consequences (beyond being potentially undermanned at the end of the game), but you would at least miss all their scenes.

Personally I'd rather have shorter games where the choices and their consequences are truly significant. Constant barrage of meaningless choices tends to numb you and lessens impact of the actually important scenes. Despite being excelent medium for C&C, visual novels tend to be plagued by this. Most of the time you're simply farming "affection points" to unlock a specific storyline. In my opinion choices shouldn't be something that you try to min/max to get the optimal outcome.

 

[Destroid]

-In Dark Sun: Shattered Lands you can spare the life of this one Wyvern-raider with a sob-story, but he betrays you and you have to kill him anyway (or exploit a bug).

This looks like pretty good CnC if looked at from the perspective of being betrayed or not, rather than the raider living or dying.

 

[visions]

Different endings could be considered as a parallel to scores in action or strategy games, representing how well you did (which might be relative in an rpg, depending on your preferences for different outcomes). So yeah, overall, fluff in the purist gameplay-only sense but still a nice afterthought and a tangible representation of your performance, which, besides being relevant if you care about the story, you can also compare with your friends (if you happen to have any) or relative stranger on the internet ("I got 20000000000 points"/"I got the ending that was hardest to get").

Fake choices in the most literal and less strict sense (when you are offered illusory choices which all lead to the same outcome) might (in theory, at least) serve well for obfuscatory purposes, so that the player would have a degree of uncertainty with any individual choice, not knowing when an offered choice leads to a different outcome and when he can safely disregard it.

 

[commie]

In the end all choices are 'fake' using the logic here: If I pick one side over another, in the end maybe I get a different gun as a reward but I still end up fighting a bunch of guys.

I don't mind cosmetic C&C with no actual 'gameplay' changes in story driven games because the shaped narrative is a gameplay element in itself. I play these games to create a particular tale, lead one side to victory over another etc. These C&C things are very bit as authentic as whatever 'real' C&C is.