I would add another thing to this I wish the author would talk about instead of immediately projecting onto their own prejudices: People generally prefer the "good" option in games.

And I don't even necessarily mean whatever the game calls Paragon-vs-Renegade. I mean the fact that for a game where you recruit characters to your "camp", naturally losing characters feels like a fail state. Like you messed something up. As a result, players will intuitively lean to options that present the least "bad outcome", in this context meaning the less often NPCs leave your camp the better. Recruiting someone is a victory, someone leaving is a defeat. The games present it as such, so it's no wonder players err towards wanting everyone there.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I know it's very hard for me to care about Mass Effect 1 Ashley Williams.

I know she's supposed to turn good (maybe?) in sequels, but, hey, you've got to sacrifice someone, because cheap emotional engagement trick.

May as well send the one-dimensional specist asshole with absolutely no other character trait.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

the one-dimensional specist asshole with absolutely no other character trait.

I used to think that about Ashley until I did what I nicknamed my Asshole Run. I was an Adept, so I usually had Ashley and Tali around me. I ended up listening to their elevator conversations, and Ashley treated Tali a lot differently than she did Wrex or Garrus (the ones she saw as a military threat) - she warmed up to her and treated Tali like a little sister. So when Tali died in that run on 3, Ashley was gutted and was crying when you go talk to her afterwards. Seeing her actually have a character arc made me like her a lot more.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I know she’s supposed to turn good (maybe?) in sequels, but, hey, you’ve got to sacrifice someone at the end of 1, because cheap emotional engagement trick.

Yeah but that's the other thing, that's how you get gamers to let somebody from their group go: You force an obvious "One or the other"-pick. I can totally see how we as consumers can more readily accept that than we can accept the very understandable part of Karlach leaving as that was not presented right in the moment you made the choice. It didn't feel like there should not be any Option C at all.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That made me think about the most arbitrary and broken player "moral choice" I know : the end of Fable 2.

spoiler

Bad guy enslaves lots of people for years for his project, killing many of them. Then kills your family and your cute puppy because fuck you.

After you beat bad guy, magic ascended girl appears, rewards you with one of three wishes for post-game : revive everyone enslaved by bad guy, revive your family and cute puppy, or give you lots of useless monies.

The player is not really responsible for the slave deaths. The ability to "fix" ten years of history by magically erasing all the deaths is weird and undermines the impact of the whole story a lot.

Also, and perhaps more importantly on the player's side of things, the dog is a freaking gameplay mechanic, not having it prevents some actions and blocks a few minor quests.

Well, sorry, nameless, faceless theoretical people who died years ago, I really need my cute puppy.

Really, the game never even establishes why that very specifically determined choice has to be made. It feels very rushed, very cheap and the whole thing is over in 5 minutes.