Irreversible Decisions

[Quigon]

Howdy! Here's the question I pose - what do you all think of decisions in game that you can't reverse? 

The best example of this would be a game that autosaves after major events. Say you meet this NPC, and for some reason you really, really don't like him. So you decide - hey, maybe the world's better off without this guy! And you kill him. The game saves, he's dead forever. However, this NPC was a story-based guy - meaning you've changed the outcome of the story permanently. Killing him has obviously closed off his options in-game, and changed some major events that would require him.

Let's see - a mixed example of this would be in Dark Souls. Say you're feeling a little sadistic, and you decide 'I know! That blacksmith has a cool hammer I want. I'm going to kill him for it'. In this game, the general rule of thumb is that after aggroing an NPC by attacking, they'll be hostile forever due to autosaves (save for some covenant related things, but that's besides the point here), and you'll be forced to kill him. Using the blacksmith example, by doing this, you've limited yourself to certain weapons being upgraded. Forever. End of.

So, the question is kind of a mixed bag, because it's that old 'should save-scumming be allowed' one. What do you think of it? Personally, I believe it adds a lot of consequence to the storyline (should the decision to off an NPC, or whatever it is have major implications on the narrative) and ups the immersion level a little more. I mean, you've killed this guy. Now live with it for the rest of the game.

What do you think?

 

[Robin]

It still adds consequence whether or not you autosave. However, if I want to replay the game making different choices, instead of continuing from a point where I can make a choice, I now have to start from the beginning.

 

[Kes]

It still adds consequence whether or not you autosave. However, if I want to replay the game making different choices, instead of continuing from a point where I can make a choice, I now have to start from the beginning.

That's the thing that irks me about autosaves.  There are games where I would have liked to pick up again from a particular point but was unable to do so.  Result - I didn't want to start from the beginning, so I never replayed those games.

 

[seita]

I personally prefer games that have these types of decisions without punishing you by autosaving your game. Games where you have choices that severely impact the storyline yet give you the chance to replay those parts give me the opportunity to see how the rest of the game plays out without without having to start over from the beginning. It's the same concept with visual novels that have multiple storylines. They let you save as many times as you want, with 100 or more save slots because they know the person playing would love to see all of the outcomes.

 

[Berylstone]

Howdy! Here's the question I pose - what do you all think of decisions in game that you can't reverse? 

The best example of this would be a game that autosaves after major events. Say you meet this NPC, and for some reason you really, really don't like him. So you decide - hey, maybe the world's better off without this guy! And you kill him. The game saves, he's dead forever. However, this NPC was a story-based guy - meaning you've changed the outcome of the story permanently. Killing him has obviously closed off his options in-game, and changed some major events that would require him.

Let's see - a mixed example of this would be in Dark Souls. Say you're feeling a little sadistic, and you decide 'I know! That blacksmith has a cool hammer I want. I'm going to kill him for it'. In this game, the general rule of thumb is that after aggroing an NPC by attacking, they'll be hostile forever due to autosaves (save for some covenant related things, but that's besides the point here), and you'll be forced to kill him. Using the blacksmith example, by doing this, you've limited yourself to certain weapons being upgraded. Forever. End of.

So, the question is kind of a mixed bag, because it's that old 'should save-scumming be allowed' one. What do you think of it? Personally, I believe it adds a lot of consequence to the storyline (should the decision to off an NPC, or whatever it is have major implications on the narrative) and ups the immersion level a little more. I mean, you've killed this guy. Now live with it for the rest of the game.

What do you think?

I'm not a fan of them.  All they end up doing usually is encourage the player to retry different decisions by reloading to a previous save.  That can be repetitive and annoying.  And chances are if you try to prevent this by forcing an auto save - it's likely to piss off the player and make them stop playing all together.  So I just don't think it's a very good mechanic when you weigh the risks vs benefits.

 

[Andar]

I think that good variants of those choices add to replay value, but a bad variant will repulse the player away from the game.


The variant with autosaves would only work for me if there are enough hints for the player to know the consequences before.


A different variant I plan to use in my game would be the choice of party members - you can only have about half the possible candidates, each one unlocking different options in the game - but you meet them all at the beginning, so there is no need for saving because there is less than 5 minutes playing time lost if you want to try a different combination...

 

[Berylstone]

I think that good variants of those choices add to replay value, but a bad variant will repulse the player away from the game.

The variant with autosaves would only work for me if there are enough hints for the player to know the consequences before.

A different variant I plan to use in my game would be the choice of party members - you can only have about half the possible candidates, each one unlocking different options in the game - but you meet them all at the beginning, so there is no need for saving because there is less than 5 minutes playing time lost if you want to try a different combination...

The way you describe it makes it sound more like you are just offering the player different ways to play your game rather than giving them irreversible decisions.  This may sound like semantics, but to me there is a difference.  So your idea doesn't sound bad to me.

 

[cabfe]

I have decisions in my game where the consequences are unknown, but you can expect something will happen accordingly some time later in the story.

Just to be sure that the player understands that it is a true decision, I have two moments in the story where you can change your mind.

But once you have confirmed this is what you want, that is irreversible.

So, you could reload a save, but that would be way back if you don't like the ending.

However, you were not trapped by an instant autosave. The decision was not taken lightly, so I assume the player get what he wanted.

 

[Berylstone]

I have decisions in my game where the consequences are unknown, but you can expect something will happen accordingly some time later in the story.

Just to be sure that the player understands that it is a true decision, I have two moments in the story where you can change your mind.

But once you have confirmed this is what you want, that is irreversible.

So, you could reload a save, but that would be way back if you don't like the ending.

However, you were not trapped by an instant autosave. The decision was not taken lightly, so I assume the player get what he wanted.

I still remember to this day how annoying it was for me to have to replay Final Fantasy 6 because I didn't know I was suppose to wait on that floating island to save Shadow.  So I would plead with you as a gamer not to make any of these unknown consequences involve characters the player may enjoy being killed off . 

 

[The Stranger]

I enjoy decisions that force you to live with the consequences. I feel it takes something away from the story, if you can simply say "Oh. Didn't like the outcome of that. Better reload and choose a different option."

The outcome should make sense, however. There's nothing more annoying than choosing to do something, then having some unforeseen, completely illogical, thing happen. I agree with what some of the others have said, about giving hints as to what the outcome will be. However, the hints should be subtle, and should be revealed during the course of events. If I really want to see how things could've been different, I will be more than happy to start the game again.

That being said, I can see a few reasons why being able to reload before making certain decisions would be a good thing. Accidentally pressing the wrong option whilst making a decision, being one of them.

 

[Tai_MT]

I actually like the auto-save feature most of the time, especially if it forces you to keep your consequences.  However, there are two ways in which this hurts bad and means it's implemented poorly:

1.  Multiple endings and no way to see the other ending without either replaying the entire 20 hour journey because the decision for your ending is at the end.

2.  Death of a character is permanent.  See Dead Space 3 Super Hardcore Manly ******ed Mode for this.  The auto-save in that game can be a real annoying feature because a death, any death, results in having to restart the entire file over again.  Oh, and did I mention that on Casual, you will be "corner hosed" a lot and murdered in some of the most stupid of instances just because of design policy on the game itself.  You can imagine what enemies with 6x health and 6x damage against you would do in higher difficulties when you're NOT ALLOWED to "new game plus" into this difficulty and must start with the absolute worst weapon in the game and can't upgrade it until about a third of the way through the game.  At that point, auto-save becomes the worst feature ever and save-scumming becomes a legit way to even beat the mode.

 

[cabfe]

I still remember to this day how annoying it was for me to have to replay Final Fantasy 6 because I didn't know I was suppose to wait on that floating island to save Shadow.  So I would plead with you as a gamer not to make any of these unknown consequences involve characters the player may enjoy being killed off . 

When I said unknown consequences, I meant : you don't know exactly what will happen, but you can have a good guess.

For example, if you try to recruit a bad guy and he's like "OK, I'll work for you on one condition. Don't betray me."

and if you know that there is a possibility to turn on him, you can expect something will happen. You've been warned.

 

[Berylstone]

When I said unknown consequences, I meant : you don't know exactly what will happen, but you can have a good guess.

For example, if you try to recruit a bad guy and he's like "OK, I'll work for you on one condition. Don't betray me."

and if you know that there is a possibility to turn on him, you can expect something will happen. You've been warned.

Ok that doesn't sound too bad then.

 

[Tsukihime]

As long as I can create save files before any critical decision. In these kinds of games I would usually have a dozen save files.

 

[Shaz]

In our games, we allocate one slot as autosave. That slot is the only one we autosave to. The player can make their own saves in other slots (the autosave slot is protected and they can't save over it). So if they want to replay from a point, they can either load the autosave, or their last manual save (and that depends on just how often it occurs to them to save their game).


I'm all for decisions like that - it provides replayability, and increases the value for money. If you let the player make their own saves, and you keep a dedicated slot for autosave instead of saving over theirs, they can go back to an earlier point and choose the other option.

 

[Dalph]

I like multiple paths in a story, it makes the whole thing less straightforward, and keeps you to complete it in every possible way (increasing the replay value of the game). Mass Effect's saga seems to use this system very well.

 

[Espon]

I prefer it if the consequences aren't known right away and aren't quite as simple as "Do I kill this guy or do I let him live?"

A lot of games, particularly those with multiple endings or are open world, feature tons of decisions you cannot change later on.

 

[Berylstone]

I like multiple paths in a story, it makes the whole thing less straightforward, and keeps you to complete it in every possible way (increasing the replay value of the game). Mass Effect's saga seems to use this system very well.

I guess in the end it depends on the type of game.  But you can create a multi-branching story without necessarily forcing a player to restart the entire game.  SWTOR boasted of their multiple paths as being an incentive to want to start their game over as new characters. I couldn't make it past the first area as an alt before wanting to quit.  Maybe I just bore easier than others though.

It just seems to me the wiser strategy is to offer the players as much as possible while the game is still fresh.  Content that only becomes available after restarting the game just seems like a waste to me, and would be better utilized by fitting it into the game's inception.  But this is just one man's opinion.

 

[Eschaton]

Don't be afraid to piss off your players.  Write well, design well, and stick to your guns.  I say, keep things going in a manner to where the player doesn't want to reload just to see what all the choices do in one playthrough.

 

[Fafnir]

I need to point out than even in Dark Souls the choice isn't 100% permanent thanks to New Game +.

If you really need to combine irreversible choices with autosaves that's is a way to make it more palatable to players, especially if NG+ is needed anyways to achieve 100% completion.