"Fake" C&C

[villain of the story]

Are we so overflowing with CnC that we have come to the point where we are being so picky about it.

b) When one path benefits a potential character and the other path doesn't at all.

An example 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).

This begs the question, is it still a CnC when you are awarded either way, no matter what you do?

 

[Archibald]

Are we so overflowing with CnC that we have come to the point where we are being so picky about it.

Seconded.

 

[Kraszu]

Are we so overflowing with CnC that we have come to the point where we are being so picky about it.

b) When one path benefits a potential character and the other path doesn't at all.

An example 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).

This begs the question, is it still a CnC when you are awarded either way, no matter what you do?

If the rewards are different it can be, also the player should have enough information to deduct what reward he can expect otherwise it would be just blind guessing, that doesn't make the game more interesting.

 

[Roguey]

Are we so overflowing with CnC that we have come to the point where we are being so picky about it.

Yep. Mass Effect 1/2, Dragon Age 1/2, Fallout 3/NV, The Witcher 1/2, NWN2 and expansions, Alpha Protocol, Risen, Divinity 2, Two Worlds 2 are full of choices you can make with varying results, many a lot more superficial than others.

 

[commie]

Might and Magic 3. I can remember all the C&C there too. Who do you give the orbs to?

 

[Captain Shrek]

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

I would like to see more non-linear gameplay too bro, but that makes the game that much difficult to make. Most games have cosmetic (kill random dude or spare him) choices to fake the complexity. The only games that have implemented C&C well are TW2 and Arcanum. They actually make the story different when you choose something (TW2>Arcanum here though). I am willing to pay some bucks if devs took their sweet time to actually make it happen sometime soon. But not holding my breath.

 

[CappenVarra]

Are we so overflowing with CnC that we have come to the point where we are being so picky about it.

Seconded.

+1 in the real world. Also applies to Might & Magic 3

However, if we are engaging in that most noble of codexian intellectual pursuits (armchair RPG design), philosoraptoring about hypothetical RPG ideals and setting eternal principles of RPGness on lofty pedestals of soul-gorged vampiric dice... One can say that C&C is fake, badly done, missing the point, lacking essence etc. if:

1) ... it results in a cut-scene, which is the only (or major) consequence of the player choice. We may call it "story C&C" and argue about its rightful and justified place, but asymptotically following it leads to a Choose Your Own Adventure Picturebook (TM) or the the dreaded Interactive Uncanny Valley Movie Of Laughable Movieness (R). And yes, ending slides count too, and even Fallout the First is guilty of this in some (but not all) instances. Good to keep in mind if you're designing the Superior RPG Of The Future.


2) ... it includes a clearly optimal/rational choice, with other choices simply being bad Larp material in comparison (even if they would be all right on their own) - a.k.a. the Bioware school. For example, the player is given a choice between:

• 
  a) [Lawful Stupid] Sacrifice their most powerful magic item to fuel a ritual which saves the kingdom for a crisis. Material loss, but +1 reputation and special future treatment from the king and law enforcement (say, when they go to warn the king that one of his advisors is plotting against him, they are actually listened to - as opposed to being thrown out by default).
  
  b) [Chaotic Selfish] Refuse to sacrifice anything, and take advantage of the crisis to steal another magic item from the royal armory. Material gain, but -1 reputation and the law enforcement is on the lookout for them in later stages of the game (making public appearances in the city ill-advised and complicating many later quests).
  
  c) [The Chosen One Must Choose] Instead of sacrificing an artifact, it turns out a single eyelash from the character is enough to fuel the ritual and save the day. In addition to the reputation increase and future preferential treatment, the character's awesomeness is rewarded with a magic item from the royal armory. The scheming advisor drops their evil scheme, realizing that all of his efforts are futile when faced with such a shining beacon of awesomeness.

If you bother to give multiple choices at all, make sure they are not a game of "Guess behind which door have I hidden the goat (reload makes right!)"


3) ... it doesn't depend on the character's strengths and weaknesses (yes, characters are meant to have weak sides too, if you can imagine), or it marginalizes them.

For example, touting stealth characters as viable options in your game means that all quest have to have a sensible stealth route, and those that logically don't can be skipped by such characters without preventing further progress in the game. So, being able to sneak through the first 25% of the game and then being thrown into a mandatory melee fight - sucks. As does being a sorcerer blasting everything in his path to smithereens, but who is foiled by a magical plot-locked wooden gate (of greater fireball resistance).

This is arguably more about general gameplay than about C&C as an atomic element, but in essence it means that player choice and resulting consequences are interwoven into all aspects of the game, instead of being tacked-on every 4 hours or so when they reach the end of a chapter (or a corridor).


4) ... it doesn't further character development (which is NOT defined as "perpetually increasing numbers offsetting a linear increase in numerical challenge", since Doom also had those in the form of bigger guns and better armor). In this particular instance, increasing health, damage & armor are not considered character development (but a simple power increase). To use an arbitrary example sure to infuriate part of the audience, choosing Weapon Focus: Spear in D&D is character development (since it means the character will favor spears over other weapons, even if the axe they find has more "pluses", so it helps define and differentiate the character), while choosing Weapon Specialization: Spear later is not character development, but a simple power increase (on a previously chosen path).

Both story-wise and gameplay-wise, the game should ideally offer multiple viable paths a character can take. For the sake of the argument, let's stick to a simple & formulaic approach: story-wise, the game can be played in Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral fashion, while gameplay-wise it can be resolved by Combat, Stealth and Diplomacy.

Whichever approach the player chooses with a particular character should push the character further down the chosen path (with possible twists). Consistently choosing combat should lead to more and more combat options being available, while choosing stealth should improve whatever aspects of stealth your game system provides; consistently being chaotic should unlock story content unavailable otherwise etc. Please note that this doesn't mean a character must be 100% specialized in a single approach to succeed (since that is kinda boring), i.e. reasonable hybrids should be viable (75% stealth + 25% diplomacy etc.); however, a single character should be able to master only a single approach (so hybridization comes at a price, unlike Morrowind et al).

If successfully sneaking through a heavily guarded fortress doesn't make your character more of "the guy who sneaks through heavily guarded fortresses" (however the game system represents those attributes), but just more all-around awesome (and better with swords and magic and engineering and charming the ladies too!), don't be surprised if it doesn't get the Noble RPG Ideals Seal of Approval. Similarly, if trying to stick to a neutral path has no effect on the story except to push the plot 3 Generic Plot Units forward, it's missing out on a lot of potential.


P.S. Obviously not talking about the Witcher, since I haven't played it. Also, I'm quite pessimistic about seeing many games implementing "real" C&C as opposed to the "fake" ones. But hell, if I prefer dark beer but find myself in a beer-unenlightened country that has only lagers, sure - I'll take what I can get; however this won't stop me from knowing and saying I prefer something else... Even if that "something" is virtually unknown on the current plane of existence, and I'm not quite sure are my ideas about it real or just a figment of imagination...

 

[Destroid]

I bet if a company made a game with genuine, game altering CnC, reviewers would complain that they didn't get to see the whole game on a single play.

 

[MMXI]

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

You can always kick out Imoen. What the hell are you on about?

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.

Like I've said twice in this thread, no, that wouldn't be fake C&C. Having the option to solve quests in different ways to get the same reward is real C&C because different ways are suited to different characters. That's what RPGs should be about on a very fundamental level. You choose your character's statistics to match (as closely as possible) the character that you want to role-play. Then you do the actions befitting your character. If you are given both a stealth and a combat option to solve a quest, the player would pick the stealthy path for stealthy characters and the combat path for brutes. If the player's character is half stealthy and half combat focused, the player has to make a tougher choice. Similarly, if the player's character is focused on diplomacy but there isn't a diplomatic option, they can either avoid the quest entirely or again pick one and try their best to solve it.

It's still C&C. In fact, that's probably the purist example of C&C as it changes the actual gameplay in substantial ways, as well as exactly how your character is being tested on a statistical level. Stealth routes would test your character's stealth abilities and other appropriate statistics, while combat routes would test your character's strength, agility and weapon skills as appropriate.

Like I said earlier, if your character is not tested in different ways for different choices, and if each choice results in exactly the same reward (the same skill increases, the same sword, the same set of potions) then that is fake C&C. If the reward differs depending on choice then that is real C&C. If different paths lead to different gameplay (meaning your characters are being tested in different ways) then it's also real C&C. A combination of both is the holy grail of C&C.

Are we so overflowing with CnC that we have come to the point where we are being so picky about it.

b) When one path benefits a potential character and the other path doesn't at all.

An example 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).

This begs the question, is it still a CnC when you are awarded either way, no matter what you do?

If the rewards are different it can be, also the player should have enough information to deduct what reward he can expect otherwise it would be just blind guessing, that doesn't make the game more interesting.

As I said above in reply to sea, especially in the final paragraph, getting the same reward for each choice (at the end of each branch) can only result in real C&C if the branches themselves lead the player's character down different routes, testing the character in different ways. If you are given a choice, and the gameplay between the choice and the gaining of the reward is exactly the same for each choice you could have made, and the reward is the same for each choice you could have made, then that's fake C&C. Any deviation from that and it becomes meaningful C&C.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I bet if a company made a game with genuine, game altering CnC, reviewers would complain that they didn't get to see the whole game on a single play.

That's exactly the response the branching paths of New Vegas received.

I want to do everything in one playthrough! Every achievement! Every quest! Everything!

 

[Crichton]

Crichton wrote:



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


You can always kick out Imoen. What the hell are you on about?

I don't have it installed ATM, so I can't confirm. But from what I remember, every path in her initial conversation led to her joining, no matter how many times you tried to tell her it was too dangerous. The only way to actually avoid her joining was to exploit a bug by running to the area transition before she could reach the PC and trigger the conversation.

 

[MMXI]

I don't have it installed ATM, so I can't confirm. But from what I remember, every path in her initial conversation led to her joining, no matter how many times you tried to tell her it was too dangerous. The only way to actually avoid her joining was to exploit a bug by running to the area transition before she could reach the PC and trigger the conversation.

But you can kick out anyone at any time by reforming the party. What difference does it make?

 

[Excommunicator]

I like that design topics can still get a rise out of the Codex population, and it is good to see many of the new posters participating too.

This whole "fake C&C" to me seems to have arisen more out of someone's emotional disappointment in a particular game than any academic analysis. It isn't a very well considered point of criticism when most people use it, mostly because people haven't agreed on a term (btw, what is an RPG? Can someone tell me?).

With that said, to me this "fake C&C" lies mostly in the Choice part, and only indirectly in the Consequence.

I would describe something as being fake if the designer has structured a section of the plot/gameplay in such a way that I feel I have been deceived as to the nature and/or extent of the consequences of a choice offered. It might be something scripted like having a dialogue sequence that offers a choice between A and B, but in choosing B the game turns around (and the worse the longer it takes) and comes up with an excuse for why B isn't actually possible, and then forces you back to option A. It could also be something non-scripted such as entering a mansion and expecting the guards to act through their AI functions to sound an alarm and communicate with the other guards of the intruder once discovered, only to find out that the guards rush one at a time ONLY on line of sight (yes this is a C&C on a higher level, but because it isn't explicitly scripted (assumed in this example), many people might think that it isn't). This may not seem the same thing, but C&C is an analytical device that allows us to test the reactivity of the world, which is exactly what we expect from the RPG. It need not be a scripted event.

Obviously the whole thing works on a long grey sliding scale, but at the worst end, you would have a player disappointed and let down about the lack of effect they have in the game world. As in the (small) Dark Sun example above, obviously you can incorporate the "fake" choice into the micro-narrative but that doesn't exclude it from being fake (/misleading), only that the designer may be forgiven by people who care more about narrative than the choice (not me). Remember, the "fakeness" is in the presentation and the communication of a choice. If you want to avoid the disappointment (and therefore the preconception of making a choice rather than following an inevitable path), you need to temper the player's expectations before they make the choice, (or far less ideally) shortly after making it, so long as the consequence is not yet expected.

I remember another example from Dark Sun which really annoyed me at the time. Some of you may remember it; the mastyrial tamer who offers to sell you his pet mastyrial (basically a giant scorpion) for something valuable, making claims about all sorts of things it can do, and the guy/game actually lets you buy it but if you try to leave the area the guy tricks you by simply calling the creature back with a whistle, with no way to have the creature as a pet. Obviously they didn't even have the mechanics in the game for a follower-pet, but it really led on as if it would be possible to keep it. Fortunately the expectation is not drawn out and you can kill the man later if you want, but that doesn't solve the "fake" choice to begin with.

Designers obviously do "fake C&C" for a number of reasons including laziness, a lack of talent, trying to smoothly cover up a loose plot end that had been cut before release or (perhaps more optimistically) because they want the harsh mistress of reality to come and reign on the player's game and remind him that even the game world doesn't revolve around him. The latter is sometimes admirable in implementation, and certainly suits a rich narrative, but you won't get a free pass on the fake C&C, which it usually is.

 

[Sceptic]

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

Except that they don't, and his survival affects a handful of things later on.

 

[msxyz]

A fake choice, as the OP said, is like those encountered in many Bioware dialogues:

A) "No way I'm going to join the Grey Wardens!"
B) "I'll gladly join this legendary order"

Both results in the player joining after some adapted dialogue.

But a choice can be meaningless in a situation like this:

A) I go here and do this
B) I go there and do that

IF, regardless of the choice, the discarded option will be meaningless to the grand scheme of the story or the impending situation will be resolved nevertheless by an external, fortuitous "deus ex machina" event.

I would add a third category, the "forced choice". Consider this:

This morning I wake up and:
A) I decide to go outside and kill the first guy I encounter
B) I decide to stay at home watching pr0n

In case of A) I'll spend the rest of my life being raped in a state prison OR, in case of B) I'll soon become blind from excessive self inflicted pleasure.

What at first seems a completely logical sequence of choice of consequences, in truth this a situation where I'm forced by the story teller (for his convenience) to follow two opposite routes which are far from my personality or that would alter the course of the events in a totally unexpected way. This is even worse when afterwards I'm not presented opportunities to further "refine" the direction the story has taken.

What matters most is the suspension of disbelief; choice after choice, the player should always get the everlasting impression of being in control of the character. Consequences of a single action or decision may be at times dire and unpredictable, that's part of the fun, but the player should come to understand that the story he's living is the result of a stack of choices, not some random situation thrown in for good measure.

 

[Arlborn]

It seems to me from reading this thread that "good" and "bad" C&C depends a lot on personal opinion, as well as how relevant it is for your enjoyment of the game.

Let me make a fun question now. Didn't Chrono Trigger(yes, I said it) have like 12 endings? I don't remember everything clearly because it was about 10 years ago when I played it and I was little more than a child but if I remember correctly it had a lot to do with your choice of when to try to beat the final boss of the game(which could be done almost at any time), but not all of the endings were achieved only by beating the final boss.

So, isn't this a kind of C&C? I guess most would say it was a sort of fake C&C because cit only affected the ending scenes, right? I still thought it was pretty neat back then, but then again I was around 13 years old.

 

[JarlFrank]

I remember another example from Dark Sun which really annoyed me at the time. Some of you may remember it; the mastyrial tamer who offers to sell you his pet mastyrial (basically a giant scorpion) for something valuable, making claims about all sorts of things it can do, and the guy/game actually lets you buy it but if you try to leave the area the guy tricks you by simply calling the creature back with a whistle, with no way to have the creature as a pet. Obviously they didn't even have the mechanics in the game for a follower-pet, but it really led on as if it would be possible to keep it. Fortunately the expectation is not drawn out and you can kill the man later if you want, but that doesn't solve the "fake" choice to begin with.

While I understand how this can be annoying and disappointing since you expected to actually be able to have a pet, but I do like this from a world/character design perspective: assholes and ticksters are many in the DarkSun world, and having a trader betray you like that is pretty nice from a standpoint of dickish NPC design. You pay for something cool, the trader gives it to you - but then takes it back with an unexpected trick. While it's shitty that the game doesn't allow for the choice of having a pet, even though it seemed so during the conversation, NPCs doing dick moves like that is something I very much approve of.
A better example would be a trader offering you a special unique magical item which then later turns out to be fake.

 

[Crichton]

Crichton wrote:
I don't have it installed ATM, so I can't confirm. But from what I remember, every path in her initial conversation led to her joining, no matter how many times you tried to tell her it was too dangerous. The only way to actually avoid her joining was to exploit a bug by running to the area transition before she could reach the PC and trigger the conversation.

But you can kick out anyone at any time by reforming the party. What difference does it make?

None, that's part of the point. You choose between:

"Yes, dear sister, join me on this great adventure"

and

"No, it's too dangerous"

And then she joins regardless. Then you can kick her out of the party regardless of what you chose before. The choice presented in the dialog is completely bogus.

Crichton wrote:
-In Alpha Protocol, sparing the A-rab guy's life matters for 30 seconds until the bombs blow him up anyway.
Except that they don't, and his survival affects a handful of things later on.

Dunno what to tell you.I've arrested him instead of executing him on all three of my playthroughs and every time he gets killed anyway.

 

[msxyz]

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

Better something like this:

                    Choice
                        /\
                       /  \
                      /    \
                     /      \
                    /        \
           Choice        Choice
               /    \        /    \
              /      \      /      \
             /        \    /        \
            /          \  /          \
           /            \/            \
       Choice   Choice    Choice
        /    \        /    \        /  \
       /      \      /      \      /    \
      /        \    /        \    /      \
     /          \  /          \  /        \
    /            \/            \/          \
   A             B            C           D

The story should evolve gradually and consequences should stack up, sometimes even canceling each other.

 

[CappenVarra]

I would like to see more non-linear gameplay too bro, but that makes the game that much difficult to make. Most games have cosmetic (kill random dude or spare him) choices to fake the complexity. The only games that have implemented C&C well are TW2 and Arcanum. They actually make the story different when you choose something (TW2>Arcanum here though). I am willing to pay some bucks if devs took their sweet time to actually make it happen sometime soon. But not holding my breath.

It's kinda funny that yes, proper choice-driven non-linearity is not trivial to implement - but nigh impossible if the game simply has to have full voice-overs and cinematics every 15 min at most.

However, if instead of spending $10 million on voice-overs and cinematics, somebody spent $1 million on choice-driven non-linearity (albeit only text-based with selected voice-overs and no cinematics - except possibly several short pieces like the Cathedral blowing up), they'd have a chance of making something interesting.

And yeah, the game would be a financial failure, Oblibion fans wouldn't buy it, and reviewers would climb all over themselves to dismiss the game as "outdated", "not innovative" and "non-immersive"... And whoever made it would end up jaded and misanthropic enough to join the codex... Like I can imagine some Interplay executive having a "chat" with MCA 6 months after Torment was released, shouting "Never EVER do that again! It's all about elf maidens with huge tits from now on, or you're through! Do we understand each other here, Mr. Ander... erm, Avellone?!".

But it might have "real" C&C

On the other hand, while games continue touting hours of cinematics and full-voice overs, you can be pretty sure "non-essential" non-linear bits will be considered wasteful and end up "streamlined / more welcoming". I mean, if you spent $100.000 on a cinematic epic finale to a quest, you'd be pretty inclined to steer players to always do the quest (and remove the choice to skip it). And Bioware would hire you

So, to paraphrase that great RPG designer of 20th century: no voice-overs and cinematics - no problems

 

[MMXI]

None, that's part of the point. You choose between:

"Yes, dear sister, join me on this great adventure"

and

"No, it's too dangerous"

And then she joins regardless. Then you can kick her out of the party regardless of what you chose before. The choice presented in the dialog is completely bogus.

Fair enough. You are right. But your original quote was:

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

Which implies that you can't tell Imoen to leave your party. But you can always tell Imoen to leave your party by reforming the party, and it succeeds every single time you try it. Telling her not to join is not the same as telling her to leave. The former is, unfortunately, a fake choice as she always joins you. The latter is always possible, even at the bottom of a dungeon.

However, even if you could prevent Imoen from joining you at the start of the game, that would still be a fake choice as there is no benefit whatsoever from not letting her join. If you could tell her to fuck off you gain nothing. If you tell her to join you can strip her of her oils of speed and her wand of magic missile, then kick her back out. In other words it would be a fake choice even if you could prevent her from joining as no one would take that option without being a LARPer.

 

[Orgasm]

I haven't seen a game with True CnC which involves a new parallel game. What we have are "+/- some number" or "different crappy fluff". Thats the reason I dont give a shit about CnC. Objectivism rules.

 

[sea]

One thing I don't get is that in BioWare games, they could very easily help to mask some of the fake choice and consequence via non-standard game overs. Consider the Origins in Dragon Age: they're designed to introduce the game world and to bring you into the Grey Wardens, and they do a very good job of presenting it was one of the only logical options (since it comes either out of necessity or it being the only alternative to death). If you could actually end up saying "no" and then see a brief epilogue featuring your execution, the world destroyed, etc., that'd be quite fitting. Fallout and Fallout 2 did that at various points, and even if it was no more fake than forcing you to join the enemy via dialogue, it did at least provide an alternative, even if it was a fatal one. A few hours of development time to avoid glossing over one of the most pivotal "choices" in the game is a small price to pay to avoid the feeling of being forced into a single decision. The mod I'm developing has several fatal dialogue choices if you want to be an idiot and take them, and I see no reason to deny the player those choices even if they're completely useless in the end.

 

[commie]

Dunno what to tell you.I've arrested him instead of executing him on all three of my playthroughs and every time he gets killed anyway.

You DON'T arrest him, you have to let him go. If he's arrested then obviously he'll still be in the area ready to get a missile in the arse.

Besides, plot wise it makes sense as Thornton is told that a missile is about to obliterate the area. If you then do the dumb move and play 'policeman' then you get what you get. It's not a fake choice, it's an option given to player, an option that is a bad decision, but it's up to the player to use their brain and decide that such a choice is silly given the information received.

 

[Sceptic]

Besides, plot wise it makes sense as Thornton is told that a missile is about to obliterate the area. If you then do the dumb move and play 'policeman' then you get what you get. It's not a fake choice, it's an option given to player, an option that is a bad decision, but it's up to the player to use their brain and decide that such a choice is silly given the information received.

To be fair to Crichton, you only get told about the missle after dealing with Al Shaheed IIRC. That said, it's definitely a good indication of what to do to keep him alive on subsequent playthroughs.