"Fake" C&C

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I hated that crap in BG2.

 

[CorpseZeb]

You seem to hate BG2... at all (via BG2ness ignore galore... .

But anyway, why even considering NPC behavior in context of “C&C”? In real world, you can tell anyone to do anything, but eventually, what they do depends of their free will, not yours. NPC always have an “excuse”, an excuse of their own cause, will, design of quest (read: will of God), whatever. At the other hand – player – should doesn't has any excuses of escaping from “C&C” - if he is a wizard, he can't fight with sword good enough to survive, because time intended to learn fighting, he spent learning spell making. Choices=consequences.

Jack of all trades is really awful syndrome plaguing nowadays RPG's (not to mention about handy “undo” function). Even in FO3NV, practically all players have guaranteed high enough speech skill at the end of game, making all the available choices meaningless (why? Because you can test them all, see them all, fuck them all...). Of course, no matter who you working for (NCR, House or that smiling robot) too, because only, only at very, very end you must choose and... bear the consequences of different endings.

In the immortal words of Andyman Messiah -" I want to do everything in one playthrough! Every achievement! Every quest! Everything!" - in one word – ADHD.

 

[Excommunicator]

But anyway, why even considering NPC behavior in context of “C&C”? In real world, you can tell anyone to do anything, but eventually, what they do depends of their free will, not yours. NPC always have an “excuse”, an excuse of their own cause, will, design of quest (read: will of God), whatever. At the other hand – player – should doesn't has any excuses of escaping from “C&C” - if he is a wizard, he can't fight with sword good enough to survive, because time intended to learn fighting, he spent learning spell making. Choices=consequences.

It isn't a matter of what the NPC decides, it is a matter of how a situation is presented to the player by the designer. What the character decides to do in the context of the world is not relevant to the concept of C&C. You're forgetting the separation of Player and Player-Character. CHOICE pertains to the options that the designer gives the PLAYER to determine/alter the experiences of the Character.

You need to remember that the game is intending to simulate a fictional world that theoretically has an unlimited number of possibilities according to its internal logic, but which is reduced down by the designer to a handful of possibilities (or just 1 possibility according to modern RPG fakes) and presented as the game that we play. The designer builds their simulation around their understanding and interpretation of that world. When an NPC does something in the world to change their mind or behaviour from A to B, that doesn't suddenly excuse the designer from the need to implement multiple possibilities in that particular scenario. It only excuses them from needing to include any possibilities that contradict the mind or behaviour of that NPC. They then have the exact same responsibility to SHIFT the Choice and Consequence to something else which is either independent of that NPC's decisions or which follows on from their behaviour.

 

[flushfire]

Of course, no matter who you working for (NCR, House or that smiling robot) too, because only, only at very, very end you must choose

No

 

[CorpseZeb]

It isn't a matter of what the NPC decides, it is a matter of how a situation is presented to the player by the designer. What the character decides to do in the context of the world is not relevant to the concept of C&C. You're forgetting the separation of Player and Player-Character. CHOICE pertains to the options that the designer gives the PLAYER to determine/alter the experiences of the Character.

Yes, I think I understand. But this is sort of “Divine point of view” - outside of player mind, outside of game sandbox of idiosyncrasies – we know we playing game, but we playing with self-knowledge of this fact at the same time. For me, NPC's “free will”, have more excuses to not having “C&C” mechanics, because they are outside, they are part of the world we don't control usually (or more accurate - I don't want to control. I find fact of interrogate people by Shep in both ME very annoying and disturbing even). Far more important are consequences of my action in the game world. Maybe developer point of view would be different, like different views have authors of book and its readers.

 

[Excommunicator]

If we were actually living in the game world rather than just playing the game, everything that we did would be a choice and have real, persistent consequences. But we don't have the luxury of a limitless simulation. The designer has made an attempt to distil the heart of that experience into a game, and failing to implement real choices along the way is taking away player input, the most important element of the whole system.

The knowledge we have that we are playing a game is very important to the satisfaction we get from the simulation. If we didn't know this, then it would be far easier for the designer to trick us into thinking there was real C&C when there wasn't. Since we know, we are able to simultaneously analyse how well the designer has implemented the element of choice, as well as feel satisfied with the fact that what we chose for our character actually altered the experience for them.

 

[CorpseZeb]

I must admit, I analyze in that way only bad games. It's like good book a good movie, I like to be... charmed (and don't think about “laser shots are inaudibly in cosmos space!” - for example). You point of view is very valid and I agree with you, but at the same a time, I think it is more a postmortem view. Why that corpse on autopsy table was so beautiful, its important question to ask, by far more important is to seen that beauty while alive.

But yes, one person knowledge of games construction and games history never is innocent. Nowadays its not a trivial task to pretending to be “innocent” and “without memory” or “naive”, so even I trying hard to be charmed - I cannot be. “The Curse of Knowledge...”

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

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?

It's not a choice in "choices and consequences" sense. It's multiple quest solutions for different types of characters.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Let's see, games with actual C&C:

Fallout 1
Fallout 2
Fallout: New Vegas (seeing a pattern here?)
Planescape: Torment
Morrowind (to a very minor degree)


That's all that comes to mind atm.

 

[thursdayschild]

The idea itself is fake.

 

[Joe Krow]

You should be able to buy a ticket but not get on the train. Actions are choices. Words are information.

 

[Surf Solar]

Let's see, games with actual C&C:

Fallout 1
Fallout 2
Fallout: New Vegas (seeing a pattern here?)
Planescape: Torment
Morrowind (to a very minor degree)


That's all that comes to mind atm.

Arcanum?

 

[DragoFireheart]

Arcanum?

Haven't played it.

 

[TNO]

Levels of 'fake' CnC (in descending order of irritation)

1) Choice leads to exactly the same outcome.

Example: Mass Effect 1. There are a few occasions (Anderson asking about your dream, first audience with the council, etc.) where whichever one of the three similar options leads you to play exactly the same response, word for word. You can tell these occasions where you realize what you'd say would have fit just as well with the other options.


2) Overdetermination

Example: pick any bioware game. Here the problem is that player choices are rendered irrelevant by swings of the narrative: so you opt to spare an NPC only for them to be killed anyway by factors outside of your control. Can be excuseable if the narration is narratively plausible instead of because the game designers were being lazy (eg. Taking Wrex along to Fist means Wrex will kill him if you don't).


3) Choice leads to cosmetically different but functionally equivalent outcome

Example: The famous 'Yes/Alright then/If you insist' choice of ME. Almost always an example of railroading. It is particularly offensive when the player has a plausible reason for saying no but he is forced to by designer fiat. Although can be plausible, it is almost uniformly less offensive to just control the PC instead of giving this fake choice. Exceptions apply when this 'cosmetic' change frames the narrative (reluctance of future plot relevance, or sincerely or insincerely stating ones intent to an NPC).


4) Choice leads to narratively important but gameplay irrelevant consequences

Example: Fallout ending slides, most of Deus Ex. This sort of C&C strikes me as fine, providing the lack of immediate gameplay impact is plausible (this done wrong is in DX:IW, when factions I repeatedly betray still keep talking to me). Story driven RPGs aren't beholden to make every choice visible to the combat mechanics.


5) Choice has gameplay consequences

More points the more diverse these choices are. BG2's Thieves/Vamps and NWN2s similar Watch/Thieves options are not that great. I actually cannot think of an option of choices having any radical affect on the game.


Anyway, (5) and (4) are great. (3) and (2) are dodgy, but can have limited use. (1) is indefensible.

 

[Esquilax]

As an example of (5), what about devouring Okku's soul in Mask of the Betrayer? It has both narrative and gameplay consequences, and it really changes how you approach things later in the game.

As much as I hate to say it, Bloodlines was pretty guilty of (1) and (3) a lot. On more than a few occasions (perhaps even more often than in Mass Effect) you'd get dialogue options that would lead to the NPC saying the exact same thing, which was irritating. Also, you'd encounter those "Yes/Alright/If you insist" scenarios when confronting Andrei or talking to the Prince in order to drive the plot forward. I like Bloodlines a lot, but it had lots of fake C&C too.

 

[sea]

5) Choice has gameplay consequences

More points the more diverse these choices are. BG2's Thieves/Vamps and NWN2s similar Watch/Thieves options are not that great. I actually cannot think of an option of choices having any radical affect on the game.

Er.

Grand Theft Auto IV?

 

[Derper]

5) Choice has gameplay consequences

More points the more diverse these choices are. BG2's Thieves/Vamps and NWN2s similar Watch/Thieves options are not that great. I actually cannot think of an option of choices having any radical affect on the game.

Er.

Grand Theft Auto IV?

Arcanum. Not a lot of thieving to do if you attack Lukan outright.

BTW, i reference to the discussion of spending 10 million on voice overs or 1 million on meaningful writing: In an isometric game, hearing the voices would be like hearing a narrator, hence you might use animated talking heads. In a highly detailed 3d game you would wonder if the sound was turned off, because animated faces without sound makes us uneasy. So... Isometric ftw! And turn-based too!

 

[deuxhero]

Also, you'd encounter those "Yes/Alright/If you insist" scenarios when confronting Andrei or talking to the Prince in order to drive the plot forward. I like Bloodlines a lot, but it had lots of fake C&C too.

False: If you aren't Nosferatu or Tremere, they have a very solid effect, as failure to suck up to him means you don't get the 2nd haven. I think he gives you more money if you do as well.

 

[SCO]

Levels of 'fake' CnC (in descending order of irritation)

1) Choice leads to exactly the same outcome.

Example: Mass Effect 1. There are a few occasions (Anderson asking about your dream, first audience with the council, etc.) where whichever one of the three similar options leads you to play exactly the same response, word for word. You can tell these occasions where you realize what you'd say would have fit just as well with the other options.

Bioware is incredible because they managed to obfuscate fake C&C to the point that they can fake it on the pc dialogs - normally the result is the same, here the pc action is the same (and the result), just with some colored icons.

It's beyond derp.

 

[Esquilax]

Also, you'd encounter those "Yes/Alright/If you insist" scenarios when confronting Andrei or talking to the Prince in order to drive the plot forward. I like Bloodlines a lot, but it had lots of fake C&C too.

False: If you aren't Nosferatu or Tremere, they have a very solid effect, as failure to suck up to him means you don't get the 2nd haven. I think he gives you more money if you do as well.

OK, the Prince I'll grant you, plus he has loads of side dialogue depending on how well you complete his mission/opens up a different ending, so that was wrong of me.

However, I'm still correct on the Tzimisce. The Plaguebearer quest is also guilty of this too. I'm sure parts of it were cut out, as I think there was a diplomatic solution for that quest planned. Too bad.

 

[SCO]

I'm pretty sure there was a sabbat path conceived of at some point - the dialog is just too leading.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

well bros simply put 'but thou must' has gotten pretty complex over the years thanks to constant refinement and practical experience by designers

 

[Excidium]

I'm pretty sure there was a sabbat path conceived of at some point - the dialog is just too leading.

I noticed that too, also that sabbat building where you fight Andrei for the second time looked like it could be the sabbat haven.

Bloodlines was filled with fake C&C...pissed me off that the prince would just dominate you if you denied a quest.

 

[SCO]

Shut up. You're higher generation. Two in fact.

Yeah i larped that like a motherfucker - my gal built a new Enoch in my mind.

 

[Excidium]

Shut up. You're higher generation. Two in fact.

Yeah, but conveniently, his dominate fails up ahead the anarch path.

Yeah i larped that like a motherfucker - my guy build a new Enoch in my mind.

Considering he kicked the Sabbat and Kuei Jin out of LA all by himself in less than a week after being embraced, that's pretty plausible.