If you have the broken steel add on paladins save you and sentinel ad you wake in the citadel with the purifier working, and using rl3 he will happily do it for you and so will Fawkes if you can persuade him to,
The main problem with all of this intellectual masturbation is that is is just that. Until big developers have the financial freedom to experiment with these ideas, and the technology to back them, this is for the most part pure intellectual masturbation. I guess that´s why I love indie games so much, you get a vivid glimpse into the future of gaming without either the developer or the gamer breaking the bank for something that might not work.
What a stupid idea; there is no insight in this, it is just the dude's unrealistic fantasy of a game that no one would play (who is going to play 40 hours and then make a "moral choice" which erases all their saves?).
Although it's a nice idea, having to screw people over constantly just to get to the end of the game would piss me off.
If I do sacrifice myself, I wouldn't able to experience everything the game has to offer and, even worse, I wouldn't know if I could have saved more people by waiting for 5 more minutes. I know I can just start over and it has the potential to be good, but it just seems gimmicky to examine sacrifice and the value of life by having someone new to save every 15 minutes.
I don't know if I would want to play a game where either I feel like shit the whole time for ignoring all the tragedies that I could avert or die in the first half-hour and get a game over. That sounds unpleasant.
1:10 Is the point where he stops talking about the actual game, starts rambling, and throwing together shitty what-if scenarios together because the review was clearly finished.
The dumbest part of the whole sequence is that two companions in the game, Marcus and the Sergeant, are IMMUNE to radiation. And they actually programmed the game so that you could ask them to go in and they *refuse*, stating that it's "your moment."
They fixed that in Broken Steel, allowing you to ask them to do it instead, but then the game *still* calls you a coward. Which is completely stupid. Why the hell would you kill yourself when the same result can be reached and no one has to die?
Ever play Nier? It erases all of your save data on your system when you get the 4th ending. Granted you have to play through the game at least three (four if you want to see C ending also) to get their, so you probably won't ever play the game again. But still... it's some serious stuff to see your hours and hours of game time erased from your system.
@PyroNecrohilliac But no matter who you send in for the Project, because of Broken STeel now everyone survives either way, thus defeating the purpose of the choice anyway.
@eataneraser sorry but thats wrong what you did in the main story actually effects certain quests or certain thigns im not gonna say any cause i don't wanna spoil it for others
Am I the only one who circumvented the entire moral choice by sending in Fawkes, a super mutant, who, like all other super mutants, is immune to radiation, and ergo, won't die?
@friboy2791 You couldn't do that in the vanilla Fallout 3. He just gives you this bullshit statement about how it isn't his right to interfere in the player's destiny, like he didn't do that a hundred times already.
If given a choice of saving a town but dying and having to restart, or leave them to their fate and I can continue to play, fuck 'em, it's a game, I want to play more.
However, instead of dying when saving the town, why not have some kind of serious consequence. Losing a limb or falling victim to a chronic condition. That way, the choice has an impact (being unable to use two handed weapons or needing to regularly medicate yourself) but doesn't cut the game short.
Having the suicide mechanic halfway through the game also isn't really a choice; you'd do whatever you had to do to continue the game, or you'd be mad at the developer for making you miss half the content. So you either miss half the game, or you get lectured by some NPC for a choice you were coerced into.
You're describing something similar to what Fable 2 does by only giving you one save slot per character. I hated that aspect of Fable 2. (I haven't played the other Fables; maybe they do it too.) I like being able to see the different outcomes of each decision without having to play the full game thirty times through. The reality is I don't have that much free time, and I just wouldn't see those other outcomes. Or I'd go to a FAQ to see which path I prefer beforehand, which is lame.
I just beat the game like 15min ago for the first time and ive been surfing the web to see how I can continue so if you tell her to go in there can you continue the game?
If the game gave me the option of killing myself or continuing and if I killed myself my game save would be erased, I'd be VERY VERY PISSED and write the developer an angry letter saying how stupid they are.
I see where you're coming from with the dilemma and in real life it is an interesting thought to entertain, but in a game, the gamer will always choose to live because they fundamentally are playing the game to complete the experience. If you were to wipe their file if they were to die a hero, then they'd have all the more reason to just be a coward and see the story to the end, turning what should be a dilemma into an easy linear decision. With some nuancing, this could go somewhere though.
That was exactly how I felt. It's like, if you were going to die in 3 minutes would it really be that hard to sacrifice yourself to save someone else?
A decision like that means nothing when you know it's the end of the game.
I agree with @shagoosty but I think the message is one at the start and that the choice doesn't matter.
War never changes.
Sure I don't think they convayed that real well at the end but...
That doesn't mean that the message is bad.
The message becomes it doesn't matter if you live a coward or if you die a hero because were so flawed as a speices that we will fuck up again and someone else will have to make this choice.
I think it might be some what over kill to say to people that content will be denied from them if they make a particular choice. That to me smacks of that game which deleted random files from the computer if you lost lives.. I think the consequence of going an action in game should be confined to "in game". Something like, you lose the character you'd built up to then? and had to create a new one to continue? i dunno - maybe something like that.
@hunkyzombie Personally,I think he's rather close. Butrather then lockingout content, this sort of sacrifice mechanic should bereserved for games withmultiple, player-created characters, like in DragonQuest IX. Then, rather then endingthe game, you'd just be sacrificing one of your importantcharacters that have been with youall this time. Thus, the whole idea that you're sacrificing game length for imagionary people, isn't as prevalent. You're justlosing ONE of your team, and the story moves on.
@Ryu8907 yea exactly - essentially i was thinking something similar, i.e. make the sacrifice a real sacrifice, but one which allows continuation. I do like the idea of making the choice to lose an investment of some kind - like a character, which represents a substantial time allocation.
Fuck your fucking realism, stupid guy, delete all the saves? I disagree, video game developers need to realize that realism sucks and is annoying. Imagine a fps that was realistic, you would kill maybe one person and then feel bad? get shot once and you have to skip a whole bunch of missions because you are injured. Die and not be able to load a previous save? are you serious? and its called an "End" for a reason, and you want them to halve the game time by having that death in the middle?
@protercool he's talking about ways to make moral choice and sacrifice ACTUALLY about moral choice and sacrifice.. not about making "realistic" shooters. Btw, realism in itself is more to do with aesthetics rather than design.. A game with one shot kills could be perfectly fun - you'd just have to find a way to make it so.
Haahahaha awesome. It's interesting that there are so many elements to a game you can use. Just one thing like self-sacrifice can add so much to a game. There must be tons of stuff that goes untapped. What about a game where you can choose to rule the world, but then you actually have to rule the world, which is a lot of hard work and not as fun as the rest of the game haha
While not a "suicide mechanic" the way Fallout 3 did it, Shadow of the Colossus had a similar morality mechanic.
Defeating the Colossi was detrimental to your own health (and hinted that it would negatively effect the natural world) but necessary to resurrect his girlfriend.
Ha, I didn't actually complete this game until all of the expansion packs were out so I never had this problem, but I do see what you're saying. What you purpose is very interesting, but you have to remember that the people who decide stuff like this are after the money, and not the quality of things.
your thoughts are going in a good direction, but you have to apply them to the concept you're presenting as well.
what makes this random old man, or this random town, or whatever WORTH saving to begin with?
now i'm sort of imagining a situation where you can either sacrifice yourself (not your life, but perhaps that's how it looks at first) and save the world but becoming weaker for it, or bring on the apocalypse to keep your power, making the world a much more dangerous place to be in!
Erm no it would not make for a more honest moral dilemma if i had to sacrifice myself EVERY time to save someone therefore causing me to reply the game to see what would of happened next, It would just be a fucking waste of my time doing shit Ive already done x amount of times.
Lower my level, take away my most used gun or item but don't make me loose my time!
The save deletion idea is to prevent the "I'll just save it so that i can just come back and replay it with the other choice then keep the save that i feel gave me better weapons/perks/whatever." Instead it would be a choice that you would have to deal with and couldn't turn back from, unless you replay the 15ish hours of gameplay. It would make you seriously weight the pros and cons and make you make a choice you feel comfortable having to deal with.
@xXQuazimotoXx I see your point but in his theoretical game every choice is continue or end the game. Eventually you will become numb to the moral dilemmas and choose Self preservation just to continue playing
@eloopj1 In theory, yes every game is continue or end the game. But the difference between a game like fallout 3 and fable 3 is that in fallout, you can save, choose the bad side, see what happens, load save, see the good side, then either go back to bad or continue with good after seeing both sides (self preservation), but games like fable 2 and 3 auto save everything and you can't reload after a moral choice, making you put more thought into it. Thats what he is trying to get across.
@xXQuazimotoXx Then i clearly have not missed the Rev's point have I. I understand that a game which offers moral choices you have to live with makes for a more interesting game. My point was was i do not agree a game which the moral choices always leave my character dead would be a good one. That was his idea for a game and i offered in my original post some alternatives; loosing a favorite weapon or item or even a skill level. Anything but a game over screen.
with the broken steel add on the ending to fallout 3 becomes a little less meaningless, but the fact that you can still play it regardless of how you played the main game nullifies any real sense of investment.
i wonder what he'd think about how they are dealing with mass effect and that whole series.. i think they have done a great job so far implicating changes from one game to another. and apparently decisions from the very first into the 3rd. of course we don't actually know much about it yet, but the amount of change that can occur in mass effect means that lovers of the game will likely do many many playthroughs.. i know that i have and its always different enough to warrant it.
I thought it was a good end, insted of just wandering round the wasteland doing nothing. allthough the DLC undermind the ending by saying "yeah you died but your ok. Choosing to save people is rendered pointless by the load function as theres no real loss if you fuck up or want to try both outcomes. However in games like dead rising where it only allows you to save at certain points (dont get me wrong i find them annoying) but they add some much tension and consiquence to fucking up.
I thought it was a good end, insted of just wandering round the wasteland doing nothing. allthough the DLC undermind the ending by saying "yeah you died but your ok. the idea of choosing to save people is rendered pointless by the load function as theres no real loss if you fuck up or want to try both outcomes. However in games like dead rising where it only allows you to save at certain points (dont get me wrong i find them annoying) but they add some much tension and consiquence to fucking up.
I agree. Just like any moral choice in games, the consequences should be much more fundamental. But the problem is that the choices would require a seperate dimension of gameplay. So, if you have two choices, those two would lead to two different dimensions, and the choice after that would lead to an additional two. So the problem is that to get the ultimate karma-based game, it would need to be humongous. The amount of different dimenstions would be 2 raised to x.
Sacrifice that means something to the game play is a fucking awesome idea. There should definitely be a consequence for not killing yourself though, beyond the game telling you you're an ass for doing it. I usually go for the altruistic route, but if missing out on a lot of story and losing all my save data are on the line, then I might just go with allowing someone else to kill themselves. There should be something making me feel like I lost something important if I live.
I agree with you on some levels but why would someone choose to sacrifice themselves half way through the game? Obviously players will choose to play on, why would they choose to cut their playing time by half?
The ending was the worst part of the game.. I thought "the president" (robot computer) was trying to exterminate all life by tricking the protagonist into putting FED into the water purifier therefore terminating all life similar to the failed mutant experiments. I was also hoping "the president's" identinty was the android and that his goal was to stop the enslavement of machines by eliminating all life.
Great job on this rant- I never really thought about throwing a possibly game-ending situation early into the game. Hell, it could really change how we look at replay value and story quality in the games we buy.
If your choice in the game was to continue on or die and when you made such choice to sacrifice yourself your game data was deleted and you had to start all over then whats the point? Whats pushing one to sacrifice? A majority of people would just finish it out. There is no reward in death.
@Villainson8th - I agree, it ties into the other video Anthony made about character empathy, because, why should I care about this whole town of people that will die, I have no reason to care.
Heavy Rain did soemthing more or less along the lines of what you're talking about, rev. Depending on the choices you'd make characters die, or survive till the end of the game.
Someone didn't do their research. You have three choices. You can go in and kill yourself, send in that woman, or send in your super mutant companion if you have him. They never said the endings would be different, they meant the outtro, and there are loads of different things to hear at the end. But everything else you said is totally fine.
@petey207 Yeah...originally if you told Fawkes to go in (if you didn't have broken steel DLC) he would say he doesn't want to sully your honor by taking the opportunity to redeem yourself or some crap like that...xD
And who the g.e.c.k. (heck) locked the doors in the memorial when you have just entered??? I mean couldn't I just say to the paladin "You do this, lady" and go out and continue exploring? ;(
So the only option left is not to enter there and explore, but not having the Enclave radio (reaaally liked how the... "president" sounds).
I was going to ask if this moral choice at the end was nullified after they released the add-ons that allow you to keep playing, but then i realized that either choice, you still live. So I'm guessing not?
This is a little bit like what Nier did. I know Nier came after this video, so I'm not shitting on Burch. Anyway, after doing enough of the game, I think it was, like, beat it multiple times or something. On the last (hardest to get) ending, you are actually given this choice, die to save (insert character here. Daughter?) or live and let her die. This sacrifice actually does delete your save file, which is a really cool idea, and one that I think fits well into what Rev's saying here.
I think REV's idea would make for a really excellent game. Most games let you take the moral high road without any consequence. In reality though doing what is morally right isn't always so easy because often it means sacrificing something that you might have wanted in the process. A game where this isn't possible would be approaching this dilemma much more maturely.
The game Nier did this exact sacrifical mechanic. It even says "IF YOU CHOOSE TO GIVE YOURSELF UP, ALL YOUR SAVED GAMES WILL BE ERASED." It's pretty hard-hitting. Ultimately though, we're here to have fun so that sort of thing, no matter the wow-factor, is usually not worth it to put in a game.
You should be more confident in what you say. You seem to always go "I dunno, i'm probably wrong" But you've spoken more sense in your rants than 99% of all game developers. You sound like you should be working at valve.
The theory is great, but if your character dies half-way through a game you miss out on the second half - most people would rather play a whole game than half of it.
Moral choices are interesting if you have to live with the consequences, but if a moral choice ends the game, it's just as pointless at the beginning as at the end. Think of Deus Ex ****SPOILERS****: whether you become a god or return the world to the dark ages it's still the end of the game.
It's a video game, if I was to make a choice in the middle of the game that would end the game and lose my save while saving many people or continue the mission and let people die, I would choose the one that allows me to go further into the game. It's just a game not a real life decision.
@shagoosty rofl holly shit dude i was thinking the same thing his like you should control your own destiny which makes no freaken sense and plus no one has to die if he goes since his got a 100% immunity to radiation giving him 100% chance of surviving
@shagoosty Weird, I just completed it and it gave me the option to send Fawkes in to do it, but after I did, the ending didn't commend my quick-thinking and instead told me I was a cowardly scumbag.
@shagoosty When i got the dlc they still called me a coward for sending fawkes in... Why? Is that cowardly? It's not stupid that's what it is. He's fine!
@TJPProductions I've had multiple people tell me this this last year, but I just have one thing to say to that. I don't buy DLC. DLC to me is a flawed concept, when I buy a game I expect that to be the complete game. I have to absolutely LOVE the game to give the devolpers more money to play the same game.
@shagoosty but its not the same game, actually in 1 of the DLC's it gives you a whole new (slightly smaller) map to explore! and another actually lets you play after the end of the game, so i say that DLC's actually improve games by ALOT and ar pretty cheap, and plz tell me how DLC's are flawed
@TJPProductions The system is flawed. When I was a kid, and I bought a video game I had the video game. Every aspect of the game was on that cartridge. Now-a-days to get the whole game you end up paying like 80 bucks after all the DLC they release. Devolopers like BioWare and Capcom are especially bad at it.
@shagoosty thats probobly they couldnt make DLC's with damn cartidges, i bet if they could add onto the games then they would deffinately choose to make the game better, if anything, the cartidge system was flawed
@shagoosty no, the cartridge COULD NOT BE PATCHED, thats why when it was out THEY COULDNT CHANGE IT, not that they chose to, its because it was impossible for them to, i bet if it were possible for them to patch the games, they would
@TJPProductions They wouldn't have to, because they actually released final products. Have you ever noticed that when you buy a game half of the time there is a patch for it day one? Have you ever played without that update? The game is usually buggy as hell and unplayable.
i say if u can die through half the game or live to see the end i would live coz they're just computer animated people and sacrifising your game is not an honour
lol just wanted to add if no one else had, (cuz i didn't read all the comments lol) did you ever get to the end with Fawks cuz you can ask him to go in and hit the button which wouldn't be an issue for a super mutant and he says some shit about its your destiny or something. I wanted to keep playing :( haha that lazy fat ass super mutant.
I think fable 2 had a good foundation when it coumes to those sorts of choices. To save other people you don't have to sacrifice your life, but you do have to sacrifice other things, such as experience or your youth. Also at the end where you have the choice of riches, family or the people, how you choose affects how npc's react to afterwards. If someone could develop on that and possibly make it harder to choose with harsher punishments, so it's a lot easier to be bad than good.
Dying halfway throughout the game didn't make sense either. If that happens, it's equivalent to stop playing the game. And all the people you saved wouldn't exist anymore because the game has stopped. In other words, there is no real gains to this sacrifice. The moment you stop playing, whatever happen to the game does not matter anymore. I would suggest maybe taking some powers away as a sacrifice as opposed to restarting the game.
Good idea Destructoid-employee, but I think if Fallout 3 had really had a realistic sacrifice mechanic then it would kind of ruin the game in its own way. They're much more charming when they're imperfect, and "game-like," how for example I love stealing shit constantly in Oblivion with no repercussions.
Strongly disagree. The choices exist all throughout the game. Its a mechanic, trying to apply completely the context of good literature or film design to gaming has never worked. As much as video games could earn more respect as an art form, that certainly doesn't mean they have to completely emulate previous art forms.
Video games have to be fun/enjoyable, big part of that is that they are not real life, they are filled with mechanics as opposed to real life which is filled with abiguity.
Of course they do, without any other purpose how would they have come to exist in the first place and/or continue to exist?
I think you would benefit from reading up on or taking some existensial philosophy. I believe you're thinking about the situation literally. Its not a question of something needing to be fun as a prerequest for it to happen, its a question of the result of an end product on its continued existence.
I love the concept of playing through a long game and having a choice like that half-way through.
When you really get down to it, though, someone is going to be playing this game, most likely, for the fun of playing it, not for the narrative. So you have to ask: Is anyone out there going to value the narrative of the game so much that they would sacrifice further play just to see a cinematic explaining that they were very noble and did the right thing?
To further elaborate (character limit), you could have this kind of dilemma half-way through the game and either way allow the player to continue, with very significant differences throughout the last half of the game. Did the player choose the cowardly path? If so, maybe they have to deal with the consequences throughout the rest of the game. Lack of trust, disdain from NPCs, etc. While if they chose to sacrifice themself, they're seen by the populace of the game as a hero for the last half.
I hated the whole game. It sucked to me because the weapons cannot be customized like you can do in oblivion, you can shoot someone in the face from 2 feet away and they don't die, the enviornment looks like a lazily designed pile of crap (i know it's a wasteland but come on they could have put in more stuff), and having played through the game and all the expansions about three times i still don't feel good about my charactor like i did with oblivion.
I agree with Mr. Burch overall. While I don't like the idea of ending the game TOO prematurely, such an option can be deeply enriching. Persona 3 actually did something like this, giving you the option to skip the last 5-10 hours of the game for an alternate ending. I opted to end it quickly since I was tired of the game. I won't go into details for spoilers sake, but given that I'm not a huge P3 fan, I found that plot point oddly stirring. On a side note, Anthony Burch is extremely hot.
as opposed to ending a game early, i focused more on the point of constantly re-evaluating your quest/objective in the game. maybe when you got to the end of a quest what you thought your actions would result in were completely off and the player would have to re-evaluate if his original goal still applied or maybe his opinion has changed throughout the whole experience. This kind of thinking really opens up new possible depth to rpg's and i hope to see it in the future. What do you think?
Great video though, I do have a suggestion, I would like if you could group your rants separately from the other DTOID vids, cause cherry picking them out from the rest of the stuff is kind of a pain, but.....I mean unless you consider the act of hunting for the rants to be some sort of work/reward thing then so be it but....that would be kind of a dick move! :)
If you have the broken steel add on paladins save you and sentinel ad you wake in the citadel with the purifier working, and using rl3 he will happily do it for you and so will Fawkes if you can persuade him to,
Just saying do your research first :)
summlarh 1 month ago
The main problem with all of this intellectual masturbation is that is is just that. Until big developers have the financial freedom to experiment with these ideas, and the technology to back them, this is for the most part pure intellectual masturbation. I guess that´s why I love indie games so much, you get a vivid glimpse into the future of gaming without either the developer or the gamer breaking the bank for something that might not work.
gamegloss 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a stupid idea; there is no insight in this, it is just the dude's unrealistic fantasy of a game that no one would play (who is going to play 40 hours and then make a "moral choice" which erases all their saves?).
mikathemage 4 months ago
Comment removed
mikathemage 4 months ago
Although it's a nice idea, having to screw people over constantly just to get to the end of the game would piss me off.
If I do sacrifice myself, I wouldn't able to experience everything the game has to offer and, even worse, I wouldn't know if I could have saved more people by waiting for 5 more minutes. I know I can just start over and it has the potential to be good, but it just seems gimmicky to examine sacrifice and the value of life by having someone new to save every 15 minutes.
wrathanet 4 months ago
@wrathanet I think that the screwing you over at the end thing would be fine if they warned you before it happened.
ninjarobo110 4 months ago in playlist Rev Rants
"Let's say you're playing an RPG where you have to avenge the death of your father-no, wait, somebody you can care about..."
ApprenticeNick 4 months ago
He does have a crush on Alyx Vance, right?
RDSBlackstriker 5 months ago
I don't know if I would want to play a game where either I feel like shit the whole time for ignoring all the tragedies that I could avert or die in the first half-hour and get a game over. That sounds unpleasant.
MrAWESOMEWOMBAT 5 months ago
Yeah, but it's hard to make the character care for NPCs so if such an option came, then it would be easier to just let them die.
Jai137 6 months ago in playlist Rev Rants
who would choose to purposely shorten a game they payed 60 bucks for?
PHILLYBOYKRM 6 months ago
"what if the game erased all the save data for that character" reminds me of neir....
TheExcaliber452 6 months ago
Mass Effect (2) pulled of a successful, meaningful ending because of every point you mentioned in this video...that should have been in Fallout 3.
MusicJustin15 7 months ago
Unsatisfying story, disappointing ending, but it is still one of the best games I have ever played.
MusicJustin15 7 months ago
um i think dieing in the middle of the game and having to restart would be super short. lol that would be a horrible game
SoppingOyster 7 months ago
um he sacrifes himself so the water in the wasteland can be purified, thats saving an entire state
SoppingOyster 7 months ago
1:10 Is the point where he stops talking about the actual game, starts rambling, and throwing together shitty what-if scenarios together because the review was clearly finished.
UncleSpankification 8 months ago
@UncleSpankification That's the idea - talking about how this is a potentially cool mechanic and that it just wasn't done really well in Fallout.
LinoWalker 7 months ago
@LinoWalker Yeah but he's not really talking about the original flaw itself, or Fallout at all. He's just making shit up.
UncleSpankification 7 months ago
@UncleSpankification It's not a review. Have you watched the rest of his videos?
Jevonjevich 7 months ago
@Jevonjevich Nope, don't care to.
UncleSpankification 7 months ago
Wait what, I wasn't listening.
Kidzilla99 8 months ago
The dumbest part of the whole sequence is that two companions in the game, Marcus and the Sergeant, are IMMUNE to radiation. And they actually programmed the game so that you could ask them to go in and they *refuse*, stating that it's "your moment."
They fixed that in Broken Steel, allowing you to ask them to do it instead, but then the game *still* calls you a coward. Which is completely stupid. Why the hell would you kill yourself when the same result can be reached and no one has to die?
skullz291 8 months ago 36
@skullz291 Don't forget Charon and Fawkes, and who is Marcus?
rebelliousgamer 1 month ago
@rebelliousgamer I meant Fawkes, I have no idea why I said Marcus. It's been a while since I played Fallout 3.
skullz291 1 month ago
you should just make games you sound like you have some good ideas
fivehouse 8 months ago
Ever play Nier? It erases all of your save data on your system when you get the 4th ending. Granted you have to play through the game at least three (four if you want to see C ending also) to get their, so you probably won't ever play the game again. But still... it's some serious stuff to see your hours and hours of game time erased from your system.
darksquall3402 9 months ago
Comment removed
darksquall3402 9 months ago
Get the Broken Steel DLC and you can continue the game after Project Purity.
PyroNecrohilliac 9 months ago
@PyroNecrohilliac But no matter who you send in for the Project, because of Broken STeel now everyone survives either way, thus defeating the purpose of the choice anyway.
eataneraser 8 months ago
@eataneraser sorry but thats wrong what you did in the main story actually effects certain quests or certain thigns im not gonna say any cause i don't wanna spoil it for others
hayhay643 8 months ago
@poochkane that is bullshit its a good thing i bought the dlc before beating the game
friboy2791 9 months ago
This is the last of the Rev Rants I can find..... Sadness
Daver14X 10 months ago
Am I the only one who circumvented the entire moral choice by sending in Fawkes, a super mutant, who, like all other super mutants, is immune to radiation, and ergo, won't die?
friboy2791 10 months ago
@friboy2791 you can only do this if you have dlc otherwise he'll say it's your destiny, which is bullshit.
poochkane 9 months ago
@friboy2791 You couldn't do that in the vanilla Fallout 3. He just gives you this bullshit statement about how it isn't his right to interfere in the player's destiny, like he didn't do that a hundred times already.
3ssay 9 months ago
this is bullshit XD
THIJAKA87 10 months ago
it felt more like a real fallout game with the set endings, like in the old days
KNIGHTMAREMANIAC 10 months ago
Muse rocks!
theoxiiii 10 months ago
If given a choice of saving a town but dying and having to restart, or leave them to their fate and I can continue to play, fuck 'em, it's a game, I want to play more.
However, instead of dying when saving the town, why not have some kind of serious consequence. Losing a limb or falling victim to a chronic condition. That way, the choice has an impact (being unable to use two handed weapons or needing to regularly medicate yourself) but doesn't cut the game short.
Mulky2000 11 months ago
@Mulky2000 Gritty pseudo-realism, INMYFALLOUT3?!
lusulpher 10 months ago 11
BROKEN STEEL, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU INSTALLED IT?
HankJwimbleton876 11 months ago
@HankJwimbleton876 XD Lol I did
epicmonkeybutt 11 months ago
can we have an episode about fallout3?
MrGrorg 11 months ago
Holy green screen, Batman!
DarkKrystal 11 months ago
Having the suicide mechanic halfway through the game also isn't really a choice; you'd do whatever you had to do to continue the game, or you'd be mad at the developer for making you miss half the content. So you either miss half the game, or you get lectured by some NPC for a choice you were coerced into.
bgatten 11 months ago
You're describing something similar to what Fable 2 does by only giving you one save slot per character. I hated that aspect of Fable 2. (I haven't played the other Fables; maybe they do it too.) I like being able to see the different outcomes of each decision without having to play the full game thirty times through. The reality is I don't have that much free time, and I just wouldn't see those other outcomes. Or I'd go to a FAQ to see which path I prefer beforehand, which is lame.
bgatten 11 months ago
I just beat the game like 15min ago for the first time and ive been surfing the web to see how I can continue so if you tell her to go in there can you continue the game?
ramblinman117 1 year ago
If the game gave me the option of killing myself or continuing and if I killed myself my game save would be erased, I'd be VERY VERY PISSED and write the developer an angry letter saying how stupid they are.
RabidKanid 1 year ago
I see where you're coming from with the dilemma and in real life it is an interesting thought to entertain, but in a game, the gamer will always choose to live because they fundamentally are playing the game to complete the experience. If you were to wipe their file if they were to die a hero, then they'd have all the more reason to just be a coward and see the story to the end, turning what should be a dilemma into an easy linear decision. With some nuancing, this could go somewhere though.
Exdeath47 1 year ago
at least the addons allowed continued gameplay lol
wogboypaul 1 year ago
That was exactly how I felt. It's like, if you were going to die in 3 minutes would it really be that hard to sacrifice yourself to save someone else?
A decision like that means nothing when you know it's the end of the game.
kcaz64 1 year ago
I agree with @shagoosty but I think the message is one at the start and that the choice doesn't matter.
War never changes.
Sure I don't think they convayed that real well at the end but...
That doesn't mean that the message is bad.
The message becomes it doesn't matter if you live a coward or if you die a hero because were so flawed as a speices that we will fuck up again and someone else will have to make this choice.
Caladors 1 year ago
I think it might be some what over kill to say to people that content will be denied from them if they make a particular choice. That to me smacks of that game which deleted random files from the computer if you lost lives.. I think the consequence of going an action in game should be confined to "in game". Something like, you lose the character you'd built up to then? and had to create a new one to continue? i dunno - maybe something like that.
hunkyzombie 1 year ago
@hunkyzombie Personally,I think he's rather close. Butrather then lockingout content, this sort of sacrifice mechanic should bereserved for games withmultiple, player-created characters, like in DragonQuest IX. Then, rather then endingthe game, you'd just be sacrificing one of your importantcharacters that have been with youall this time. Thus, the whole idea that you're sacrificing game length for imagionary people, isn't as prevalent. You're justlosing ONE of your team, and the story moves on.
Ryu8907 1 year ago
@Ryu8907 yea exactly - essentially i was thinking something similar, i.e. make the sacrifice a real sacrifice, but one which allows continuation. I do like the idea of making the choice to lose an investment of some kind - like a character, which represents a substantial time allocation.
hunkyzombie 1 year ago
Hey Rev, what did you think of the moral choices in Mass Effect? Vote this up so that he can see
Ghdefg 1 year ago
@Ghdefg He talks about it in the Rev Rant called "Paragon/Renegade". You can find it on Destructiod.
noremac60 1 year ago
Fuck your fucking realism, stupid guy, delete all the saves? I disagree, video game developers need to realize that realism sucks and is annoying. Imagine a fps that was realistic, you would kill maybe one person and then feel bad? get shot once and you have to skip a whole bunch of missions because you are injured. Die and not be able to load a previous save? are you serious? and its called an "End" for a reason, and you want them to halve the game time by having that death in the middle?
protercool 1 year ago
@protercool he's talking about ways to make moral choice and sacrifice ACTUALLY about moral choice and sacrifice.. not about making "realistic" shooters. Btw, realism in itself is more to do with aesthetics rather than design.. A game with one shot kills could be perfectly fun - you'd just have to find a way to make it so.
hunkyzombie 1 year ago
Just wondering, what comic or graphic novel is the image in 2:37 from?
Great rant! I've been waiting on a game that works with such mechanics.
FoxLady2 1 year ago
Haahahaha awesome. It's interesting that there are so many elements to a game you can use. Just one thing like self-sacrifice can add so much to a game. There must be tons of stuff that goes untapped. What about a game where you can choose to rule the world, but then you actually have to rule the world, which is a lot of hard work and not as fun as the rest of the game haha
TheReluctantKing 1 year ago
AH HA! this video was made before broken steel
coffee4everyoneMD 1 year ago
While not a "suicide mechanic" the way Fallout 3 did it, Shadow of the Colossus had a similar morality mechanic.
Defeating the Colossi was detrimental to your own health (and hinted that it would negatively effect the natural world) but necessary to resurrect his girlfriend.
DumpsterJedi 1 year ago
Ha, I didn't actually complete this game until all of the expansion packs were out so I never had this problem, but I do see what you're saying. What you purpose is very interesting, but you have to remember that the people who decide stuff like this are after the money, and not the quality of things.
Thanks for being insightful.
shomu1025 1 year ago
Nier did this good to a T. Nier. All I'm saying.
IanCaronia 1 year ago
your thoughts are going in a good direction, but you have to apply them to the concept you're presenting as well.
what makes this random old man, or this random town, or whatever WORTH saving to begin with?
now i'm sort of imagining a situation where you can either sacrifice yourself (not your life, but perhaps that's how it looks at first) and save the world but becoming weaker for it, or bring on the apocalypse to keep your power, making the world a much more dangerous place to be in!
RoaraWolf 1 year ago
Erm no it would not make for a more honest moral dilemma if i had to sacrifice myself EVERY time to save someone therefore causing me to reply the game to see what would of happened next, It would just be a fucking waste of my time doing shit Ive already done x amount of times.
Lower my level, take away my most used gun or item but don't make me loose my time!
eloopj1 1 year ago
@eloopj1 Wow, you missed the point of it.
The save deletion idea is to prevent the "I'll just save it so that i can just come back and replay it with the other choice then keep the save that i feel gave me better weapons/perks/whatever." Instead it would be a choice that you would have to deal with and couldn't turn back from, unless you replay the 15ish hours of gameplay. It would make you seriously weight the pros and cons and make you make a choice you feel comfortable having to deal with.
xXQuazimotoXx 1 year ago
@xXQuazimotoXx I see your point but in his theoretical game every choice is continue or end the game. Eventually you will become numb to the moral dilemmas and choose Self preservation just to continue playing
eloopj1 1 year ago
@eloopj1 In theory, yes every game is continue or end the game. But the difference between a game like fallout 3 and fable 3 is that in fallout, you can save, choose the bad side, see what happens, load save, see the good side, then either go back to bad or continue with good after seeing both sides (self preservation), but games like fable 2 and 3 auto save everything and you can't reload after a moral choice, making you put more thought into it. Thats what he is trying to get across.
xXQuazimotoXx 1 year ago
@xXQuazimotoXx Then i clearly have not missed the Rev's point have I. I understand that a game which offers moral choices you have to live with makes for a more interesting game. My point was was i do not agree a game which the moral choices always leave my character dead would be a good one. That was his idea for a game and i offered in my original post some alternatives; loosing a favorite weapon or item or even a skill level. Anything but a game over screen.
eloopj1 1 year ago
with the broken steel add on the ending to fallout 3 becomes a little less meaningless, but the fact that you can still play it regardless of how you played the main game nullifies any real sense of investment.
Amarkcalledme 1 year ago
cavestory does this.
amruane82 1 year ago
i wonder what he'd think about how they are dealing with mass effect and that whole series.. i think they have done a great job so far implicating changes from one game to another. and apparently decisions from the very first into the 3rd. of course we don't actually know much about it yet, but the amount of change that can occur in mass effect means that lovers of the game will likely do many many playthroughs.. i know that i have and its always different enough to warrant it.
afrobandit79 1 year ago
I thought it was a good end, insted of just wandering round the wasteland doing nothing. allthough the DLC undermind the ending by saying "yeah you died but your ok. Choosing to save people is rendered pointless by the load function as theres no real loss if you fuck up or want to try both outcomes. However in games like dead rising where it only allows you to save at certain points (dont get me wrong i find them annoying) but they add some much tension and consiquence to fucking up.
Randomhero1066 1 year ago
I thought it was a good end, insted of just wandering round the wasteland doing nothing. allthough the DLC undermind the ending by saying "yeah you died but your ok. the idea of choosing to save people is rendered pointless by the load function as theres no real loss if you fuck up or want to try both outcomes. However in games like dead rising where it only allows you to save at certain points (dont get me wrong i find them annoying) but they add some much tension and consiquence to fucking up.
Randomhero1066 1 year ago
2:15
FAP FAP FAP FAP
AttackMyAss 1 year ago
actually, if you play with god mode, you don't die and are able to continue on with the side quests.
wookielin123 1 year ago
I agree. Just like any moral choice in games, the consequences should be much more fundamental. But the problem is that the choices would require a seperate dimension of gameplay. So, if you have two choices, those two would lead to two different dimensions, and the choice after that would lead to an additional two. So the problem is that to get the ultimate karma-based game, it would need to be humongous. The amount of different dimenstions would be 2 raised to x.
It will be beautiful
Resurrectedfantasy 1 year ago
The Gunslinger!!! @ 2:37
shatterjack 1 year ago
that would be an awesome concept
Niqbal87 1 year ago
Sacrifice that means something to the game play is a fucking awesome idea. There should definitely be a consequence for not killing yourself though, beyond the game telling you you're an ass for doing it. I usually go for the altruistic route, but if missing out on a lot of story and losing all my save data are on the line, then I might just go with allowing someone else to kill themselves. There should be something making me feel like I lost something important if I live.
QuakerMC 1 year ago
the ending was ok
kris10ish 1 year ago
I agree with you on some levels but why would someone choose to sacrifice themselves half way through the game? Obviously players will choose to play on, why would they choose to cut their playing time by half?
Rusty511 1 year ago
you know, I was about to make a video about the ending too. Such a waste of potential.
It' s like the dev' s give a big fuck you, game over. I had 27.000 caps saved up for the other quests, and then it' s just.... over??
HLimmen 1 year ago
i killd citys
i cut them up and eated them up
sent the paladin in
and sent my fucking slave goul in with the dlc data
in total
killing things was fun :D still is fun :D and il just keep fucking doing it *starts up game* TIME TO KILL THE PENTAGON
wolfodonneld2 1 year ago
The ending was the worst part of the game.. I thought "the president" (robot computer) was trying to exterminate all life by tricking the protagonist into putting FED into the water purifier therefore terminating all life similar to the failed mutant experiments. I was also hoping "the president's" identinty was the android and that his goal was to stop the enslavement of machines by eliminating all life.
but meh..yeah..no twists..no imagination.
Most decisions made had no reprecusions
EyeAmBatman 1 year ago
hey hey just get the BROKEN STEEL addon and you will be ok
konar96 1 year ago
Great job on this rant- I never really thought about throwing a possibly game-ending situation early into the game. Hell, it could really change how we look at replay value and story quality in the games we buy.
spscotto 1 year ago
The whole "Game about sacrifice and suicide meaning something" kinda sounds like Mass Effect 2 lol.
Malgana 1 year ago
what if
ifyousays0 1 year ago
If your choice in the game was to continue on or die and when you made such choice to sacrifice yourself your game data was deleted and you had to start all over then whats the point? Whats pushing one to sacrifice? A majority of people would just finish it out. There is no reward in death.
Villainson8th 1 year ago
@Villainson8th - I agree, it ties into the other video Anthony made about character empathy, because, why should I care about this whole town of people that will die, I have no reason to care.
Boolean121 1 year ago
Heavy Rain did soemthing more or less along the lines of what you're talking about, rev. Depending on the choices you'd make characters die, or survive till the end of the game.
redblues 1 year ago
Bethesda need to hire this guy
Twist3rD 1 year ago
Someone didn't do their research. You have three choices. You can go in and kill yourself, send in that woman, or send in your super mutant companion if you have him. They never said the endings would be different, they meant the outtro, and there are loads of different things to hear at the end. But everything else you said is totally fine.
petey207 1 year ago
@petey207 You couldn't originally send in Fawkes.
shadowfiendking 1 year ago
@petey207 Yeah...originally if you told Fawkes to go in (if you didn't have broken steel DLC) he would say he doesn't want to sully your honor by taking the opportunity to redeem yourself or some crap like that...xD
Malgana 1 year ago
You do have a point....I would want to play if tha game was like you said....
ShadowLady247 1 year ago
And who the g.e.c.k. (heck) locked the doors in the memorial when you have just entered??? I mean couldn't I just say to the paladin "You do this, lady" and go out and continue exploring? ;(
So the only option left is not to enter there and explore, but not having the Enclave radio (reaaally liked how the... "president" sounds).
gtabro1337 1 year ago
DLC
vidgamaddecked 1 year ago
then just to actually fully finish the game, we'd have to choose to be an asshole.
....
huh. pretty awesome concept if you ask me.
solidkwon 1 year ago
I was going to ask if this moral choice at the end was nullified after they released the add-ons that allow you to keep playing, but then i realized that either choice, you still live. So I'm guessing not?
MrAluminumJacket 1 year ago
MAKE THIS FUCKING GAME!!!!!! THE ONE HE IS TALKING ABOUT! WE NEED THIS!
MrPathogenocide 1 year ago
This is a little bit like what Nier did. I know Nier came after this video, so I'm not shitting on Burch. Anyway, after doing enough of the game, I think it was, like, beat it multiple times or something. On the last (hardest to get) ending, you are actually given this choice, die to save (insert character here. Daughter?) or live and let her die. This sacrifice actually does delete your save file, which is a really cool idea, and one that I think fits well into what Rev's saying here.
IronyIncarnate 1 year ago
I think REV's idea would make for a really excellent game. Most games let you take the moral high road without any consequence. In reality though doing what is morally right isn't always so easy because often it means sacrificing something that you might have wanted in the process. A game where this isn't possible would be approaching this dilemma much more maturely.
Raycloud 1 year ago
The game Nier did this exact sacrifical mechanic. It even says "IF YOU CHOOSE TO GIVE YOURSELF UP, ALL YOUR SAVED GAMES WILL BE ERASED." It's pretty hard-hitting. Ultimately though, we're here to have fun so that sort of thing, no matter the wow-factor, is usually not worth it to put in a game.
Katana314 1 year ago
There is called an expansion u freakin dipshit!!!
Kyangtse 1 year ago
You should be more confident in what you say. You seem to always go "I dunno, i'm probably wrong" But you've spoken more sense in your rants than 99% of all game developers. You sound like you should be working at valve.
TheGMaster111 1 year ago
you don't die if you get broken steel
volker136 1 year ago
well actually in truth THE GLASS FREAKING BREAKS and radiation fills the entire room no matter what choice you make at the end
vanwhy9 1 year ago
mass effect 2 does exactly what this guy said; probably best game and best ending ive had the privilege of playing
SonofAmerica1111 1 year ago
@SonofAmerica1111 Keep your spoilers to yourself please.
TheZally13 1 year ago
love the homage paid to the gunslinger. woot. this game did have serious sacrifice though.
RIP Dogmeat.
jachle 1 year ago
The theory is great, but if your character dies half-way through a game you miss out on the second half - most people would rather play a whole game than half of it.
Moral choices are interesting if you have to live with the consequences, but if a moral choice ends the game, it's just as pointless at the beginning as at the end. Think of Deus Ex ****SPOILERS****: whether you become a god or return the world to the dark ages it's still the end of the game.
Wilbefast 1 year ago
It's a video game, if I was to make a choice in the middle of the game that would end the game and lose my save while saving many people or continue the mission and let people die, I would choose the one that allows me to go further into the game. It's just a game not a real life decision.
secretsniper96 1 year ago
My complaint was I had that big ass super mutant who was immune to radiation with me. Why the fuck couldn't he go in there?
shagoosty 1 year ago 81
@shagoosty get the dlc you can send the mofo in there
wolfodonneld2 1 year ago
@shagoosty
"Hurp derp its not my destiny hurr"
TheFingerbuns 1 year ago
@shagoosty u need a dlc i think
kris10ish 1 year ago
@shagoosty rofl holly shit dude i was thinking the same thing his like you should control your own destiny which makes no freaken sense and plus no one has to die if he goes since his got a 100% immunity to radiation giving him 100% chance of surviving
MVDZ15 1 year ago
@shagoosty Weird, I just completed it and it gave me the option to send Fawkes in to do it, but after I did, the ending didn't commend my quick-thinking and instead told me I was a cowardly scumbag.
thelieinking 1 year ago
@thelieinking Is it cowardly to want to use an option that avoids useless death?
shagoosty 1 year ago
@shagoosty When I asked him and he said no, I put the game away. Until the expansion came out.
thehasslessydney 1 year ago
@shagoosty "Because this isn't his story, but yours." Yeah... that had to be the most fucking retarded mess-up in a story I've ever seen.
a) he does it, it takes a minute and we can go for a cold Nuka Cola afterwards, of course it'll be on me
b) I do it, I die... yeah...
panad0r 1 year ago
@shagoosty He could, I got him to do it anyway. I originally had the ghoul follower and he couldn't go in because he sucked
protercool 1 year ago
@shagoosty When i got the dlc they still called me a coward for sending fawkes in... Why? Is that cowardly? It's not stupid that's what it is. He's fine!
duploman1000 1 year ago
@duploman1000 You fucking coward. You should throw yourself into certain death even if there is an alternative to get the same thing done.
shagoosty 1 year ago
@shagoosty you could after broken steel.
Exarian 1 year ago
@Exarian I don't give developers extra money.
shagoosty 1 year ago
@shagoosty GOTY edition. same price.
Exarian 1 year ago
@Exarian Yea, a year later. I bought the game when it came out. I'm not going to rebuy the game.
shagoosty 1 year ago
@shagoosty well, I guess that just means better game experience for me who only really bought it later.
Exarian 1 year ago
@shagoosty he can go inside their at the end
halosbadboyz 11 months ago
@shagoosty I know right, and when I got captured by the enclave my companion star paladin cross just let it happen.
dan7564 11 months ago
@shagoosty if you have the broken steel DLC, you can actually send him in, and it calls HIM the hero
TJPProductions 11 months ago
@TJPProductions I've had multiple people tell me this this last year, but I just have one thing to say to that. I don't buy DLC. DLC to me is a flawed concept, when I buy a game I expect that to be the complete game. I have to absolutely LOVE the game to give the devolpers more money to play the same game.
shagoosty 11 months ago
@shagoosty but its not the same game, actually in 1 of the DLC's it gives you a whole new (slightly smaller) map to explore! and another actually lets you play after the end of the game, so i say that DLC's actually improve games by ALOT and ar pretty cheap, and plz tell me how DLC's are flawed
TJPProductions 11 months ago
@TJPProductions The system is flawed. When I was a kid, and I bought a video game I had the video game. Every aspect of the game was on that cartridge. Now-a-days to get the whole game you end up paying like 80 bucks after all the DLC they release. Devolopers like BioWare and Capcom are especially bad at it.
shagoosty 11 months ago
@shagoosty thats probobly they couldnt make DLC's with damn cartidges, i bet if they could add onto the games then they would deffinately choose to make the game better, if anything, the cartidge system was flawed
TJPProductions 11 months ago
@TJPProductions The cartridge system we actually got complete games. Now developers release buggy games and fix them in a patch.
shagoosty 11 months ago
@shagoosty no, the cartridge COULD NOT BE PATCHED, thats why when it was out THEY COULDNT CHANGE IT, not that they chose to, its because it was impossible for them to, i bet if it were possible for them to patch the games, they would
TJPProductions 11 months ago
@TJPProductions They wouldn't have to, because they actually released final products. Have you ever noticed that when you buy a game half of the time there is a patch for it day one? Have you ever played without that update? The game is usually buggy as hell and unplayable.
shagoosty 11 months ago
@shagoosty plz tell me a cartridge game that doesnt have ANY glitches, plz tell me about ALL THOSE CARTRIDGE GAMES THAT ARE JUST PEFECTLY MADE
TJPProductions 11 months ago
@TJPProductions I didn't say perfect, I said complete.
shagoosty 11 months ago
i loved the game but the ending was SHIT
MrFelixthecat911 1 year ago 21
it ends unless you buy the add ons
BulaBulaVinaka 1 year ago
i say if u can die through half the game or live to see the end i would live coz they're just computer animated people and sacrifising your game is not an honour
LEATHERBELTAWW 1 year ago
lool
EternallApprentace 1 year ago
lol just wanted to add if no one else had, (cuz i didn't read all the comments lol) did you ever get to the end with Fawks cuz you can ask him to go in and hit the button which wouldn't be an issue for a super mutant and he says some shit about its your destiny or something. I wanted to keep playing :( haha that lazy fat ass super mutant.
atomicamish782 2 years ago
I feel like no one would ever sacrifice themselves ever
AwesomeLightbringer 2 years ago
My favorite rant
TakeruKamiya 2 years ago
I think fable 2 had a good foundation when it coumes to those sorts of choices. To save other people you don't have to sacrifice your life, but you do have to sacrifice other things, such as experience or your youth. Also at the end where you have the choice of riches, family or the people, how you choose affects how npc's react to afterwards. If someone could develop on that and possibly make it harder to choose with harsher punishments, so it's a lot easier to be bad than good.
Cransnatch 2 years ago
I choose to live~
donlagmanx 2 years ago
Dying halfway throughout the game didn't make sense either. If that happens, it's equivalent to stop playing the game. And all the people you saved wouldn't exist anymore because the game has stopped. In other words, there is no real gains to this sacrifice. The moment you stop playing, whatever happen to the game does not matter anymore. I would suggest maybe taking some powers away as a sacrifice as opposed to restarting the game.
sydneywhz 2 years ago
Good idea Destructoid-employee, but I think if Fallout 3 had really had a realistic sacrifice mechanic then it would kind of ruin the game in its own way. They're much more charming when they're imperfect, and "game-like," how for example I love stealing shit constantly in Oblivion with no repercussions.
The ending needed to be meaningless, I mean.
KraljevicPavle 2 years ago
Strongly disagree. The choices exist all throughout the game. Its a mechanic, trying to apply completely the context of good literature or film design to gaming has never worked. As much as video games could earn more respect as an art form, that certainly doesn't mean they have to completely emulate previous art forms.
Video games have to be fun/enjoyable, big part of that is that they are not real life, they are filled with mechanics as opposed to real life which is filled with abiguity.
Yoshiki03 2 years ago
"video games have to be fun"
no they dont
sethisawesome 2 years ago
Of course they do, without any other purpose how would they have come to exist in the first place and/or continue to exist?
I think you would benefit from reading up on or taking some existensial philosophy. I believe you're thinking about the situation literally. Its not a question of something needing to be fun as a prerequest for it to happen, its a question of the result of an end product on its continued existence.
Yoshiki03 2 years ago
you would do well to quit talking out of your ass
sethisawesome 2 years ago
It took you a month to bring out this intellectual jewel of a response? Climb back into whatever hole you crawled out from.
Yoshiki03 2 years ago
lol
sethisawesome 2 years ago
I love the concept of playing through a long game and having a choice like that half-way through.
When you really get down to it, though, someone is going to be playing this game, most likely, for the fun of playing it, not for the narrative. So you have to ask: Is anyone out there going to value the narrative of the game so much that they would sacrifice further play just to see a cinematic explaining that they were very noble and did the right thing?
theslyder 2 years ago
To further elaborate (character limit), you could have this kind of dilemma half-way through the game and either way allow the player to continue, with very significant differences throughout the last half of the game. Did the player choose the cowardly path? If so, maybe they have to deal with the consequences throughout the rest of the game. Lack of trust, disdain from NPCs, etc. While if they chose to sacrifice themself, they're seen by the populace of the game as a hero for the last half.
theslyder 2 years ago
I hated the whole game. It sucked to me because the weapons cannot be customized like you can do in oblivion, you can shoot someone in the face from 2 feet away and they don't die, the enviornment looks like a lazily designed pile of crap (i know it's a wasteland but come on they could have put in more stuff), and having played through the game and all the expansions about three times i still don't feel good about my charactor like i did with oblivion.
pizzatay6378797 2 years ago
I agree with Mr. Burch overall. While I don't like the idea of ending the game TOO prematurely, such an option can be deeply enriching. Persona 3 actually did something like this, giving you the option to skip the last 5-10 hours of the game for an alternate ending. I opted to end it quickly since I was tired of the game. I won't go into details for spoilers sake, but given that I'm not a huge P3 fan, I found that plot point oddly stirring. On a side note, Anthony Burch is extremely hot.
IWasACactus 2 years ago
as opposed to ending a game early, i focused more on the point of constantly re-evaluating your quest/objective in the game. maybe when you got to the end of a quest what you thought your actions would result in were completely off and the player would have to re-evaluate if his original goal still applied or maybe his opinion has changed throughout the whole experience. This kind of thinking really opens up new possible depth to rpg's and i hope to see it in the future. What do you think?
thecjguy777 2 years ago
Great video though, I do have a suggestion, I would like if you could group your rants separately from the other DTOID vids, cause cherry picking them out from the rest of the stuff is kind of a pain, but.....I mean unless you consider the act of hunting for the rants to be some sort of work/reward thing then so be it but....that would be kind of a dick move! :)