The Illusion of Choice – How Games Balance Freedom and Scope – Extra Credits

all right this week we’ll be talking about the illusion of choice and games if you missed last week’s episode on choice as a designer it’s important to think of choice not only in the context of narrative but also in the context of play so here we’ll be talking about the illusion of choice in both so what do we mean by the illusion of choice well we simply mean any moment in the game where you as a player feel as though you’re making a choice when in reality there’s either no alternative option actually being presented where the consequences of that choice are negligible now it’s really easy to hear something like that and say what a terrible thing I hate it when they do that to me in games but bear with me for a second because the truth is what you hate is when you notice that they’re doing that to you in a game I’d submit that 80% of the time you aren’t even aware of it when this happens and honestly using the illusion of choice is actually often a smart design decision because come on no game can truly give you limitless freedom and the more actual freedom a game gives you the more content the developer has to create the bigger the scope of the game gets the more it’ll cost to develop even the huge studios with the biggest budgets like Bioware can’t give you all of the freedom you might like so designers have to embrace the illusion of choice in order to provide that feeling of agency and that opportunity to make choices that’s so compelling because games aren’t about what really is they’re about what you perceive if what mattered in games was what was really happening we’d be talking about electrical impulses and math not experiences and the truth is choice in games is about the act of choosing in a game as a player where you have agency is not in the consequence of an action but in deciding what to do whether it’s a dialogue choice about the fate of the world or a split-second decision to dodge left instead of right it’s a lot like life actually you have control over the choices you make you use those to influence the consequences that result but you don’t actually have control over those consequences otherwise we’d all just make the right thing happen all the time as a designer the decisions you set up should be compelling the player should feel engaged by the moment of choice itself the consequence of the result of that choice is just the payoff of course without that payoff a decision can feel incomplete and flat but the entire point of that payoff is to make the player feel like they have agency if the choice itself doesn’t feel consequential and isn’t engaging to the player than the payoff won’t matter so overall the illusion of choice not a bad thing so how is it best implemented well let’s talk about narrative first the most common implementation is the tactic of creating short branch off the central narrative that eventually reconverge on that central narrative later there are lots of names for this technique but I usually hear beads on a string because that’s sort of how it looks when you diagram the choices out so how do these beads on a string work well basically your player will reach a choice in the narrative let’s say deciding who decide within an argument depending on who the player sides with the content they experience changes a bit for the next small interval of play but then something happens say the party is attacked and everybody has to band together the designers slip in one last piece of differing content where the arguing characters decide to make nice and bang your back on the central storyline and if the designers are really tricky they’ll put a knot or two down the road to that original decision you made just a differing line or two four hours later something to acknowledge that the choice happened and you’ll feel like you made a decision you’ll feel like you wait a moral choice wrestled with which party member you liked more or ask yourself who was right and in doing so you did something meaningful in the grand dark of the game it functionally changed almost nothing at all but to you it felt like it did and these divergence convergence points come in all sorts of sizes some are ultra small for you Mass Effect fans if you’ve played through any of those games more than once you know that a lot of the dialogue options get the same result no matter what choice you pick and some divergence convergence points are ultra large those of you who have played The Witcher 2 know what I’m talking about there’s a choice you make pretty near the beginning that causes a massive divergence and then it converges pretty much never it’s basically two completely different stories from that point on the longer the divergence the more real choice you could say there is but the more expensive it becomes to create as well perhaps the best example of maintaining the illusion of choice is found in Mass Effect where to save on voice-acting costs NPC characters will often give you the same response no matter what you pick in the dialogue tree but because all your available dialogue choices are so cleverly written that single response they recorded makes sense no matter which line they’re responding to so often as a player you felt like you made a decision and that they were responding to what you said or did even though your choice really changed nothing because in the moment you won’t realize that all the other branches are the same it’s wonderfully done this maintenance of the illusion of a living responding world was a key part of the Mass Effect experience and the only way they could possibly deliver that experience to the scale I wanted was to find all the places where by clever design they can offer that choice experience in a way that costs them little to create now the same idea of illusory choice is often used in play itself and say you’re running around in a shooter game you turn down one city street but then you see soldiers ahead rolling out razor wire across the road and you think I better go the other way illusion of choice right there you made a choice to go down a street that didn’t fit the game flow or wasn’t in the budget to fully create and the designers could have made that road just a dead end or thrown up an obnoxious invisible wall but instead they put something there that would subconsciously direct you away something you would choose to avoid now instead of thinking about the fact that you’re being pushed down a linear path you feel like you just made two consecutive decisions now an even subtler example of this is visual highlighting when navigating a game environment will often head straight for whatever door is illuminated or the incongruously textured part of the room or whatever thing looks most like a road and will do it without even thinking these are subconscious triggers that draw us in and because of that will usually not realize how limited the space we’re exploring in actually is often in games that use this sort of visual highlighting the rest of the environment is actually pretty bare and uninteresting but so many players will make a beeline for that lighted area or that interesting texture then very few people will ever notice how featureless the rest of the world is in the moment it feels like you’re playing in a vibrant environment and what’s more it feels like you’re making a decision about where to go another example of this would be breadcrumbs coins or rewards that leads you down a certain route as is placement of explosive barrels and shooters we could probably do a whole episode about the techniques for leading a player through a physical space in a way that makes them think they’re choosing where to go but you get the idea the feeling of making a choice or having agency in a game can often be substituted for the actual ability to make a choice and feel just as satisfying this isn’t saying that there’s not a lot we might do especially in the narrative field to make choices feel more consequential but it’s got to happen in the context of limited or elusive choices not by actually shouldering the cost of making a game that responds to whatever the player wants to do development costs are way too high as it is the key is to create smarter not just to create more so next week we’ll be asking the question how much agency do we need to feel like we have agency and we’ll try to unravel one of the continuous sticking points in the dialogue on meaningful choice I hope to see you then

100 thoughts on “The Illusion of Choice – How Games Balance Freedom and Scope – Extra Credits

  • pokemon sun and moon has a lot of those dialog answers that will always get the same response… its kind of obvious tough….
    here's an example of a lot of the choices you make in sun and moon:
    "So do you want ice cream or pizza?"
    -ice cream
    answer: "you know that does sound nice, but i think we should get both"
    its not bad, just kind of meh

  • You can make a game that responds uniquely to every choice using some form of procedural generation of plot. But the result ends up lifeless because nothing unexpected ever occurs. You're limited to patterns at that point, and while there may be a million combinations and therefore a million results from a choice, the differences will be so subtle.

    Interestingly enough, this happens in real life too. How often have you thought, that guy looks exactly like so and so, but he's a different ethnicity or from a different region on Earth? That's because there are far less major structural differences in people than you'd think. The subtle differences gives the illusion of transitional change, one big fluid spectrum of facial features, but it's not really there at all. Rather there is a discrete amount of different facial feature forms, and small variances mixed in on top.

    Plop enough people into your environment, and eventually everyone starts to look the same, even if a handful are drastically different.

  • I absolutely hate when games pull the "choice" doesn't lead to different line/option, it comes across as lazy in my opinion and it's glaring when you're replaying.

  • Surprisingly well done in Kagero: Deception back on the PS1.
    Who'da thunk you can attack your trainer instead of the poor schlub who walked into the castle…

  • Hope i can write it right..
    MassEffect is just a linear interactive movie.Doing this is even easier than doing 3d big cartoon or graphic-only movie, but profits more-more bigger. It's not even a game!
    Product of pure greed.
    Illusion of choice is just a excuse made for players that feel stupid of this "game", nothing more, and optimal-small excuse for some marketing announcements that company announce for sell they game .
    Film-like "games" = cancer. Put some primitive story, plus not so good blurry 3d graphic, plus pseudo game-like elements (pseudo leveling, pseudo progressing, pseudo shooter elements or platformers elements etc) and voila we have another easy money. Shooters without dynamics and danger, rpg where "roleplay" mean "just listen that fucking story and pretend to be that hero we done for you solid", platformers where you just rapidly press X for escape crushed train.. you buy this, they do it more. Ideal of any commercial – just do nothing and take all of money, so they glad to do that many nothing that you agree for pay. Dont be so cheap..
    Choices make more content and its too hard, you say? Then why fallout 1-2 back then do it so easily, without heavy plus-content? Maybe because low graphics? No – F3-4 and TES S and O have awesome visual and still pretty much sand-box type nonlinear rpg games, where you can do all you want and play any style you want.
    For good game needs good gameplay – nor graphic, nor any of pseudos.Look at minecraft. Some developers just dont want to work and think, all they want is easy money and maximum unfair to us.They try to fool for money, and even where they can not, they still try to just copy most popular brands with less work into it.

  • Dark souls kind of does the opposite of this, as Dan probably knows by now. Many times in the games, the first in particular, it looks like you're being pushed down a linear path, when you actually do have a real choice about what to do, the game just doesn't tell you. Two minutes into the game you encounter the asylum demon. Pretty much everyone tries to fight it once or twice, and then gives up and runs past it, believing they're not supposed to fight it then. Turns out, that was a real choice, you 100% can fight the asylum demon then and there, and if you do you get a unique weapon as a reward.
    Similarly, late into the game, many NPCs tell you what you have to do in the game and, it being a game, you assume you're just supposed to do what they tell you. Turns out you don't, there's nothing stopping you killing or annoying many major npcs and if you do you can go down an alternate story, the game just never tells you this.
    This is something I've missed as the series has gone on. This all contributed a lot to the feeling of depth in the original, but as the series has grown these practices have been abandoned in favor of illusion of choice. The newer games feel big until you dig into them, then turn out to be disappointingly average in scope, while the earlier games felt average, but as you got more invested you realized just how much was beneath the surface.

  • great essay. thank you.
    I'm probably alone on this one, but I I think this is the reason I really liked Mass Effect 3 ending. I thought it was beautiful and moving. The "choices" are perfectly balanced throughout the game, but it was clear to me that the main goal of the game would be the same to all players. In the end, it is still a character-driven narrative. My choices LEADED me to the end of the game, and I never felt they were creating a new-customized one. Not everything has to be like Heavy Rain, for instance, that offers more than twenty endings, but just a few are truly satisfying and coherent to the narrative we've been following — through a mix of playing and witnessing; let's not forget these games have cutscenes —. It really worries me that gamers nowadays just want games that are bigger, more customized and with infinite possibilities, when, like you said, it's all an illusion and, most of the time, the true artistry and the bigger value are not in the possibilities, but rather in a well-designed path you are compelled to take.

  • So lying is good as long as people are happy and they never find out you lied to them. That's what I got out of this. 😀

  • Infamous (Spoilers)

    Good Cole: Save a bunch of Doctor's lives, but Trish dies.
    Bad Cole: The person who you think is Trish, isn't Trish and a bunch of Doctors die along with Trish.

    Trish dies either way.

  • the half-life series does a GREAT job of making you feel like you chose the path, when in reality, you just followed an extremely linear path.

  • I normally explore everything the level has to offer first before going to a highlighted area because I want to see as much of a game as possible and see if I haven't missed anything. Let's say I play Kirby and I come across a door. Would I immediately go in without thinking or think "Hm, how about I fly upwards and ignore the door?" and then get rewarded with something. And then when I know/think there's nothing left, I enter the door.

    So when the area is highlighted and I have invisible walls everywhere or the level doesn't let you explore, I'll find that out immediately thanks to me not wanting to immediately get done with a game.

  • I feel like I think about this way too much when playing games. Whenever I choose a dialogue choice that yields a response that seems slightly off or even just leads to a certain outcome for the game, I'm always left wondering for a few moments if my choice actually had any impact whatsoever. The same goes for side paths and whatnot, I sometimes worry that by avoiding highlighted routes and seeking out "the road less traveled," I'm actually going exactly where I'm supposed to. I should probably just focus on the playing the game lol

  • I can't believe you didn't mention The Stanley Parable. Its purpose is to create the allusion of choice! (Feel free to correct me)

  • I get the "direction via visual cues" thing, but I (and many others) often choose to go somewhere else rather than immediately to the obviously-interesting part of the scene… probably because so many games in the past have rewarded that kind of exploration with hidden 1-ups and the like. (Or treasures, like in the more-recent example of the Uncharted series) Especially when interesting stuff happens away from the "intended" path, it feels more adventurous.

    In fact, I'd like to see a game (or make one myself) that takes advantage of this, where pretty much the whole game exists off the "beaten path" and the literal path that the player sees in the game world is actually the most content-barren part–and deliberately so, all for capturing that "off the beaten path" feel. Take advantage of some players' tendency to avoid the obvious route and make the "intended" one the less-obvious route. They can feel clever for basically having played an entire game by avoiding what they at first thought was the "right" way to go.

  • This episode made me realize something interesting. All my favorite games have nearly unlimited possibilities, and your choices are very much real and will greatly impact how the game plays out.
    Age Of Empires
    Cities: Skylines

  • bioshock infinite was really bad with handling this. great game,but when it dropped a ball, it dropped it down a cliff.

  • I have to ask what do we get out of illusions. What does an illusion say. I want to quote a quote from Joshua Sawyer during a gdc conference on fallout: New Vegas "players are both smarter and dumber than we think they are." I think this is an important quote to mention in this conversation because I'm a fairly but not insanely intelligent 16 year old who recently scored a 24 composite on his ACT and is currently considering working towards a career in game development. Alot of the time when I see games use illusion of consequences I ask why. What point does it serve. Back to the quote I think that no matter what illusion of consequences is going to start becoming unreliable. After all I was able to see how fo4 fakes choice and consequences. Players are becoming less prone to this illusion and that means that more work must be done to hide the truth from the players. I think that players are becoming less prone because we gamers are forming more communities and many gamers already have friends. Thus meaning that are friends and people in our communities are recommending us more games and telling us more about games to avoid. This means that more games are getting played both good and bad. I also think that the bad examples are showing us how the good examples use this illusion. if this is true than I think that many developers are going to start using actual consequence to hide their scenarios where they don't have consequence( for example mass effects paragon/renegade system). This creates an issue however where players play the game a second time only to find out that the consequences are far fewer in that game then they believe and if there one thing players get annoyed with is learning that they have been lied to. My point is the more games use illusion of consequence, the more players learn about this meaning that developers have to create better illusions but since there illusions will only last so long before they become ineffective they have to create consequence systems, since these consequence systems are now systems they must fit into the mechanics of the game but since this system is based off of something artificial it feels just as artificial once the player dives deeper into the mechanics and story of the game. This meaning that the players ruins there own experience by diving deeper into the game making them aggravated that they just did something that feels and basically is completely pointless. I'm okay with game that have choices that don't have consequence but don't artificially mask that from the player. Soma is a perfect example of choice without consequence. It's a game that remembers that player thought is just as much agency as actually consequence is. The players is never expecting the choices the player makes to be brought back up but instead to be treated as thought material adding a layer of depth that wouldn't have been there in the first place.

  • I am going to leave Life is Strange related comments on every video of this channel. Because seriously F that game. If the whole selling point of your game is "your decisions matter" than for gods sakes come up with something better than one huge "bead on a string" that leads you to one final choice no matter what. Even worse than the fact that no previous choices matter, is the fact that neither ending is satisfying, and one of them is VERY clearly the one you are supposed to pick while the other one is an under-developed, anti-climatic mess that makes no sense and gives no reward. UGH why did I waste so many hours of my life going back to make sure every NPC liked me and to water the goddamn plant? AAAA

  • When it comes to exploration, I'm a completionist. If I were in that hypothetical game and saw guards laying out razor wire down a road, my first thought would be, "there is content at the end of that road and I want to see it", not "I'll take this other route".

    This is the problem I have with a lot of CRPGs. I don't want to metagame, but when this genre of game rewards you for thoroughly exploring every area, I feel like I have to.

  • I very much hate the illusion of choice concept, and I feel it's unnecessary, for example- in chrono trigger u get arrested and tried in court, and depending on certain actions u did (like saving a cat, stealing an old man's cake, etc) u get either a guilty or not guilty verdict, and I loved it that my choice had consequences, it made me feel more engaged with the game

    After getting a guilty and having being thrown to prison, I restarted the game to get a not guilty verdict but was sent to prison nonetheless, which completely shattered my newfound engagement, what they could've done was replace the prison event with another level that would have let me to the same conclusion as the prison one, but instead they just ignored the verdict I worked hard to get

  • I don't know if this is a good or bad idea, but what about giving a player a string of seemingly pointless choices and sneaking in a subtle one that actually has a large butterfly effect, or even several?

  • This all reminds me a little about picking out when scenes in films or tv use stunt actors instead of the character actors- it doesnt detract from the piece, because sometimes you just have to use stunt doubles, and it has its own kind of brilliance in how they weave the illusion that it is that character, or here how they make the illusion you are making a choice. Its pretty neat

  • When I'm following roads, exploding barrels, or lighted paths, it's not from illusion of choice. The times I'm doing that, I'm following those paths because my experiences in game worlds tell me that this is the way to go to see what the designer has planned out for me. There's not really an illusion of choice involved there, it's either "I choose to progress through the game" or "I choose to explore for a bit and worry about that glowing thing later". Those are both real and valid choices. The place where this tends to get screwed up is when I'm in a game that is more open than the level designers realized, and get to the next area only to have to backtrack to hit some unknown checkpoint along the designer's path to trigger whatever's next.

  • You see an alien with a cookie. Choose your dialogue!
    A. Threat: "Give me that cookie or I'll make you into Kalamari."
    B. Lie: "I have a medical condition and I need a cookie right now or I could die!"
    C. Polite: "May I please have that cookie, Mr. alien?"

    Alien's response:
    A. "Take the cookie, just don't hurt my tentacles!"
    B. "Here! Should I get a doctor?"
    C. "Why, of course you can!"

    The next time you interact with that alien:
    A. He's nowhere to be found, probably hiding from you. GO KILL HIM
    B. (something to do with getting a lifetime supply of cookies for you or something)
    C. "Hi, human! I didn't think I'd see you again!"

  • The entire point of choice in games is to increase replayability and false choice kind of ruins that. If on your second playthrough when you picked an alternate option the game just pulled up a GUI that says "HA HA PRANKT YOU!" you would be understandably furious and this is no different.

  • That's all and true….but you forget when the illusion of choice is finally broken, and permanently broken your never see the Game or possibly even the entire studio in the same light again. More so if they built their entire franchise around "choices" to begin with.

    I mean like when Telltale Games Illusion has been broken sufficiently, and it's no longer all that impressive and you never wanna touch their games again.

  • i have to disagee with this episode i actually hate this in rpgs (real ones were you accually have a role) it makes it give the game no real coice with mean you don't get to think about choosing anything and asking yourself "what would this charcter do" is what makes those games fun too bad that so few of those games exist like i can name 3 at best

  • Games like Skyrim and Half-life (and I'm sure others) did this with demolished areas or collapsed tunnels. You'll be on a city street (in HL) or a building or a dungeon and there will be all these streets or hallways or corridors you could pass through but alas it has collapsed due to time or war and there is debris everywhere so you might as well go another way instead. Clever girl.

  • This is the biggest issue I have with "The Walking Dead" series, because well, it really seems even if you pick something different, no matter what, it seems to end the same way, everyone dies. The walking dead just feels taunting and insulting as a game.

  • I don't know about anyone else here but when i see the queues to advance the plot i go the other way as maybe there is something i missed. And this is usually done on first playthroughs and playthroughs after that i just try to beat the game fast as possible or just trying to find a lot of glitches as possible within the game, which usually only happens when i am not trying too.

  • I'm okay when an NPC responds to me in the same way regardless of my choice, like in Mass Effect, but not when my own character will say the same thing regardless of my choice, like in Mass Effect.

  • "Pick A Card" scenarios (As I call them) also do this. Basically, imagine you get 10 cards (marked 1-10, naturally), and told to pick a card and if you get "10" you win a prize. When you think about it, you feel in the moment that you are picking what could be a prize, however in reality no matter what card you chose that still is a 1/10 chance and I could have just as easily dealt you 1 card to serve as a chance.

    It's an interesting tool I've seen games use, where they pretend the choice is there when in reality the choice itself could have been removed and no change to the outcome would have happened.

  • You also have to take in consideration that allowing early decision to impact gameplay and/or story late in the game requires more programming, which requires more workers and more money

  • My problem with choice based games is that I will make save points before each choice, and then see both options to see which I like better. If the choice is just an illusion, I may realize it. It's a habit I need to get over, but it is hard to.

  • I once somehow broke a quest by not following the path and completing it earlier by skipping a main part but it didn't get recognized as completed and now I can't reach 100% on that save slot. yay

  • Illusion of choice is great for the first playthrough, and it saves the developers a lot of money.
    Real choice is more difficult to create, but it adds tons of replayability.
    They both have their pros and cons, and both are good options.

  • I tended to be a rebel in games where it looks like there are multiple paths, but there are only one. because more often I either subconsciously or intentionally go the other way. or in games where you have to hurry to get away from something, and there are obvious ways forward, I look for all the secrets and find the empty hallways. and even in games where the point isn't to explore, if the illusion of a large world is there I am going to try and explore. sure sometimes I end up going the "right way" the 1st time, but that's usually an accident and something I try to avoid. I also tend to get upset when I do that, because now I figure I've missed stuff. even if I go back now, what ever I missed might not be there anymore.

  • I'm not looking for games to present me with every possible choice or consequence. I just want my actions within the confines of the game to actually matter. Who I make friends with, who I antagonize, who I kill or who I spare, all of these things should matter and affect the outcome of the game. If all roads lead to one, then none of it matters and putting the "illusion of choice" in the game is arbitrary and ultimately pointless window dressing to obfuscate the fact the game has little to offer beyond those pretend choices.

  • Fallout 4 for the worst example of illusion of choice. holy crap feels like no choice, is no choice, and the lines your are given hammer home how badly they lie about you having choice.

  • This reminds me of the ending of subsurface circular, I won't spoil it, but I sat there for a good half hour debating the choice, and still felt satisfied with my decision after making it, even though it actually barely changed the ending at all.

  • Illusion of choice: Wolfenstein's 2 timelines. I was excited to replay and choose Wyatt once I finished the game on the Fergus timeline, but then I did…

  • 5:09 this never works on me, for some reason when I see something that I want to go to, my brain always thinks: "If I go there I will progress, so I shouldn't go there until I have explored everything."

  • "The most common implementation is the tactic of creating short branches off the central narrative that eventually re converge on that central narrative later."

    And Shadow the Hedgehog does this the WORST. During the first stage in Westopolis, you have three different branches of choice. You can either head for the Chaos Emerald and go the neutral path (that's Glyphic Canyon), kill all the humans and go to the next dark stage (that's Digital Circuit), or kill the aliens and go to the next hero stage (Lethal Highway).

    But see, it's not static. You can start off neutral and side with the good or bad guys later, and get pushed toward different stages and endings, etc and vice versa.

    But it's kinda a mess. Let me give you an example. In many areas, no matter who you help or how you zig-zag, none of the other characters will ever acknowledge this in cutscenes or dialogue or even in the end game.

    If you make it to Lethal Highway after siding with Sonic in Westopolis, you can actually still side with Doom to escape the city in Lethal Highway yet the cutscene and boss battle you get with one of his minions, Black Bull, remains exactly the same. In fact, you'll still be tagged up with Sonic regardless with whether you actually sided with him in-game or not.

    That's because it's scripted to the point of laziness. There are many ways … to get to the exact same spot and linear branching ending (10 in total) and there's little nuance to your smaller choices.

    The only time they appropriately brought up a betrayal is when you help Eggman in Lava Shelter and he acknowledges this… but Shadow still refuses to hand over the Chaos Emeralds so once again, he's still your last final boss for that path.

  • "NPC characters will often give you the same response no matter what you pick in the dialogue tree."

    And this could be done in a really lazy manner, or a competent manner.

    Here's how to do it wrong using Life is Strange for both:

    Mr. Jefferson asks you a question in class and whether you pick "You're asking me?" or "I did know…" he's gonna say "You either know this or not Max!" and it's kinda lame.

    A better example of repeating some dialogue is when you have bigger choices, like whether to report Nathan to the principal or not. Later on you'll confront Chloe with this, and either way she'll tell you not to trust the Principal. That would make sense no matter what you chose, like Extra Credits highlights here:

    "…but because all your available dialogue choices are so cleverly written, that single response they recorded, makes sense no matter which line they're responding to."

  • This is basically Radiant Historia, and that is probably the best example of using an illussion of choice, because it fits the narrative, enriches It, and at the same time it becomes part of the Gameplay.

  • I just hate when games focus choice toward the relationship between the player and the NPC's instead of more impacting decisions.

  • Please don’t do the thing where you give me multiple dialogue choices then follow them with the exact same line. It’s easy to tell when that happens and just makes me wonder why I was given a choice in the first place. Similar thing with when there’s one line difference then back to the exact same

  • at 2:37 the example you gave is EXACTLY what happens in South Park: The Stick of Truth and it pissed me off so much cause it was really obvious.

  • THX for mentioning the Witcher 2. It had two amazing moments of choice (minor SPOILER duh)

    After the first chapter, the game reminds you that making promises comes at a price. You can either keep the promise or side with your friend. You have like 10s to decide and it changes the entire second chapter and has a major impact on the third (and last) chapter.
    In the last chapter, you have to make some tough moral choices. The consequences aren´t in the game anymore but narrated thereafter. However, it doesn´t feel like pick-your-ending (like in deus ex 2).

  • 5:13 more seasoned players, however, know that developers hide all the goods in the darkest corners. I use highlighted paths as a sign to explore what the developer is trying to hide. They obviously want me to follow this character up the staircase, well I am going down the bottom even if that means going down three or four flights.

  • so, do you love pokemon?
    me: no
    sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Can you repeat yourself?
    me: NO
    sorry, you will never progress unless you agree and in this world there's no choice. Say yes or be forever trapped in limbo
    me: fine… yes
    please try to fill in the pokedex
    me: NO
    ha ha, incorrect!

  • 5:42
    Very, very clever. They're talking about discovering a hidden lack of content and to do that, they reuse a frame from before.

  • Wow really…no wonder the US is all screwed….the ManChild care more for games..than the real Illusion of Freedom I'm real life….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *