Why Do Branching Storylines Never Deliver on Their Promises?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Why Do Branching Storylines Never Deliver on Their Promises?

Could we perhaps make some kind of official universal agreement to the effect that the whole 'branching path' thing in triple-A story-driven games never really delivers the promised experience?

Read Full Article

I think Alpha Protocol came as close to nailing it as you can. Different bosses, different outcomes, the ability to completely avoid the toughest fight in the game by doing your research, Characters/factions you could kill, ally with or basically ignore.

It was far from perfect but i felt my choices shaped the storyline somewhat

Part of me thinks that the fake-out "your choice matters" thing is fine if it successfully makes you feel responsible and more invested in the events of the story. Some games manage to do that stuff reasonably well, even though a choice might only have temporary effects or even no effect other than how you're made to feel about the situation.

For example in the Walking Dead episode 2 you have a "do I kill this bitten person or not" choice except if you say no or hesitate another character will immediately leap in and kill him anyway. The same outcome "the guy dies" happens in both instances but you feel differently about the characters involved.

It's totally fair to complain that this isn't really a branching story though and I think with big cutscenes and AAA production values it'll always be impossible to do anything other than token nods to branching storytelling for the sake of marketing.

Ogre Tactics: Let us cling together, was one of the best games for the impact of actions and branching narratives, and it originally came out in the mid 90's on the SNES.(They did release a remake for the PSP.)

The Banner Saga did a decent job to (at least as far as the first installment is concerned, not in a position to judge the second part.)

Same with branching conversations. All you have to do is look at the realities of trying to create a dynamic, branching, believable environment and what resources that all requires. It is far too much for how little will be averagely consumed by the "normal" gamer. It is a pipe dream that even if it does get realised fully (with enough time), it will never be as appreciated as the work put into it could justify. Tis unfortunables for now.
Tales from the borderlands had a pretty interesting setup for its' endng which really did bring home the many tolls of your previous decisions in an almost impeccable manner. But it is a special case so far, worthy of more study, hopefully. Though some decisions were frustrating when they didn't come with extra dialogue options to explain my reasoning to the NPCs before they got all judgey on me with their damn assumptions.

Nazrel:
The Banner Saga did a decent job to...

Banner Saga definitely has consequences (perhaps too much, lol), but it doesn't branch narrative for more than a few screens at a time. Some of the re-connecting branches come off very forced, IMO. It's annoying when the particularly difficult accomplishments are simply rolled back right afterwards.

The closest example that I can think of that had a branching storyline (choose your own adventure type) is Guardian Heroes. At the end of most stages or before some boss fights you had to choose between 3 to 5 options, these choices would determine what bosses you fought, and which of the five different endings you got.

What you ask Jaime Reyes to do in Deus Ex affects whether or not he shows up later in France

I had no idea Blue Beetle showed up in Deus Ex

Pyrian:

Nazrel:
The Banner Saga did a decent job to...

Banner Saga definitely has consequences (perhaps too much, lol), but it doesn't branch narrative for more than a few screens at a time. Some of the re-connecting branches come off very forced, IMO. It's annoying when the particularly difficult accomplishments are simply rolled back right afterwards.

You have some pretty big ones in relation to who lives, who dies, and who joins you, which in turn impacts future events, and I'm not sure the full scope of the impact of some of the actions is felt yet.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rolling back accomplishments.

Why the hell is optional content synonymous with "content most people will never see"?
That's replayability.

Alternate routes in starfox make you want to re-play it to find out how to get on them.
Murdering toriel in undertale and then finding out there is a way to prevent that makes you want to re-play to try and do that and so does finding out that random enemy encounters are finite and something will happen if you deplete them.
Finding out you can talk yourself out of pretty much everything makes you want to re-play planescape torment after murdering everything.
Binding of isaac wouldn't be anywhere close to what it is if every pickup and all level layouts were pre-determined and if you had already seen every pickup in the game after completing it.

Why is linearity desired and good but branching content is so scary?
Shouldn't it be the other way around, scary that the player will just throw away the game and never touch it again after finishing it 1 time because there's nothing left for them to do?

I think Stories - The Path of Destinies does branching story nice.
But then if you consider the multiple playthroughs as a single game, you get a nice looping story. The game is designed in a way to force the player to finish it multiple times to get a fuller experience. There are 25, I believe, different endings. Almost all are negative and don't change too drastically, but since beating the game once takes maybe 2 hours tops, all the different endings accumulate into a nice story.

And what's up with optional content being considered "content that the player may not experience"? What's with that bullshit? Yes, if you rush to the end and don't do anything else you will miss it out, but that's your own damn fault for being stupid and not enjoying the game. It's replayability. If the game is well designed with multiple playthroughs in mind, it will be engaging to play several times and not just once. Morrowind can be beating in 3 minutes and 14 freaking seconds. OH MY FUCKING GOD! WHAT A SHITTY GAME I MISSED OUT ON SO MUCH CONTENT!

And "missing out on content" is why drives another thing that annoys me. People playing completionist in RPG games. It's a stupid concept and the games are ruined because the devs are too scared to tell those people to fuck off. You're not roleplaying in that case. You're doing everything. That's why you can become the leader of every fucking guild in Skyrim in a single playthrought. Mage, Thieve, Brooderhood... everything. One character.
Try doing that in Morrowind. Yes, again that game. The game where your choices actually mattered and where joining and advancing in one guild can permanently make a faction enemies and prevent you from ever joining or talking with some people. Is that missed out content? Yes, if you don't play again. But that's the point of RPG games. You play a role. Now I'm playing a thief, the next character is a mage. The one after that is a warrior. Non of my character is a Gary Stu who can do literally everything like many people seem to play RPG games.
Yes, you're playing the game wrong. And because developer pander to you you ruined the RPG genre. At least the old series.

It sounds to me like allowing branching storylines in games means programming the equivalent of however many games for each possible branch of the finished product. Programming for one linear story is enough of a headache.

Properly done branching storylines require commitment from the developer to not hand off the narrative at the last minute to a douchebag who can't write worth a damn, writers who either have near eiditic memories or know how to design a well-annotated storyboard, and a publisher who won't be an asshole and reduce the total time on a project by a third halfway through. Predictably, this does not happen that often.

Oh, and a well designed bug hunting system on the part of the developer because branching storylines vastly increase the probability of dialogue and scripted sequence bugs.

loa:
Why the hell is optional content synonymous with "content most people will never see"?
That's replayability.

Alternate routes in starfox make you want to re-play it to find out how to get on them.
Murdering toriel in undertale and then finding out there is a way to prevent that makes you want to re-play to try and do that and so does finding out that random enemy encounters are finite and something will happen if you deplete them.
Finding out you can talk yourself out of pretty much everything makes you want to re-play planescape torment after murdering everything.
Binding of isaac wouldn't be anywhere close to what it is if every pickup and all level layouts were pre-determined and if you had already seen every pickup in the game after completing it.

Why is linearity desired and good but branching content is so scary?
Shouldn't it be the other way around, scary that the player will just throw away the game and never touch it again after finishing it 1 time because there's nothing left for them to do?

Starfox is only about half an hour of content in a shot-through though, with minimal story overhead to try and weave in. Alternate routes just kind of change a few bosses and stages around, they don't alter the narrative.

I got maybe an hour into the second go at Undertale before being bored because the content was very heavily samey. Genocide might give a bit of fresh on the gameplay side, but the monotony of hunting down the encounters in a (presumably) third slog through is about as appetizing as collecting all the flags in Assassins Creed to me.

Isaac - See Starfox.

Torment's a bit more versatile, but ultimately again, the story doesn't alter significantly until the endpoint, and the gameplay being awful has generally kept me getting far in a rerun of it.

If we're comparing it with Choose Your Own adventure books, the obvious sort of inspiration, I remember that most of them had 2-4 full paths in them. Games seem to stick to one, and barring minor differences in approach (talking vs fighting) or attitude (positive do gooder vs cartoon bad dude, maybe with a cynical in-betweener), don't ever really seem to change the fundamental narrative. The same people will still die, in the same ways, maybe delayed by a few minutes. I remember points in the Walking Dead where they clearly forgot (despite the X Will Remember note) previous choices, because characters started being jerks to me even though I hadn't done whatever thing they were upset about (which still happened, just at the hands of someone else or arbitrary fortune)

Nazrel:

Pyrian:

Nazrel:
The Banner Saga did a decent job to...

Banner Saga definitely has consequences (perhaps too much, lol), but it doesn't branch narrative for more than a few screens at a time. Some of the re-connecting branches come off very forced, IMO. It's annoying when the particularly difficult accomplishments are simply rolled back right afterwards.

You have some pretty big ones in relation to who lives, who dies, and who joins you, which in turn impacts future events...

It's really easy to lose a lot of characters, but aside from a few snippets of dialog it doesn't impact future events at all.

Nazrel:
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rolling back accomplishments.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Why Do Branching Storylines Never Deliver on Their Promises?

Could we perhaps make some kind of official universal agreement to the effect that the whole 'branching path' thing in triple-A story-driven games never really delivers the promised experience?

Read Full Article

The only games with branching story lines that I played is RE1/Remake (canonically everyone survives anyway), Eternal Darkness (you're required to do all three to get the true ending), and Guardian Heroes, a brawler that did that idea better back in 1995. And even then the GBA sequel only made the first ending you're most likely to get in the original canon (the one where the party joins the Skyborn). The sequel was mediocre, so most fans like to ignore it, including me.

Nazrel:
Ogre Tactics: Let us cling together, was one of the best games for the impact of actions and branching narratives, and it originally came out in the mid 90's on the SNES.(They did release a remake for the PSP.)

Wow, I'm surprised someone beat me to this.

But yeah, this game was the first thing that came to mind when I tried to think of games where you make decisions that actually radically affect the story, since, depending on your decisions, the main character's position, who they're allied with, and even their goals can all change immensely.

Seems a few people beat me to some of the best examples - Ogre Battle / Tactics Ogre, JRPGs from the SNES/PS1 era that offered huge depth based upon what you did and who you friended/went against etc. I can't believe that another great JRPG has been missed - Chrono Trigger! Talk about branching storylines and endings! There are some other JRPG games, such as the Agarest series that have some branching storylines (5 generations, things differ depending on who you marry etc).

On the Western and more recent offerings, Morrowind, DeusEx (all of them), and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines all had some branching story paths based on your choice, as did the Mass Effect Series. However, the very best recent, "cinematic, Western" game I can think of that did this best of all is Alpha Protocol.

If you haven't played Alpha Protocol, it is pretty much truly a "Spy movie you control". There are TONS and tons of factors that change the story in significant ways. From the start you pick your starting skils/class which affects how people see you (Were you a soldier? Spy? Worked in the tech department? Fresh recruit? There's even a secret class that may unlock....). Every conversation has at least 3 replies named after the 3 "JB" spies - James Bond (suave, flirty, and snarky), Jason Borne (professional and to the point) and Jack Bauer (Aggressive, demanding, controlling -TELL ME WHERE THE FUCKING BOMB IS OR I RIP OFF YOUR LEFT TESTICLE heh), plus sometimes a "special" 4th option. Everyone you speak to has a faction system, ranging from -10 hating you to +10 loving you, and favors certain reply styles - though they aren't 1 dimensional where you can just keep hitting the same reply every time and it will work, as they have their own (often hidden) motivations that will require thoughtful communication to help, hinder, or unveil. Positive experiences with some will alienate others. The way you play the game, with stealth or going loud, letting certain people go or bringing them in etc.. all impacts things as well even WAY down the line. Hell, there's a certain (some say the hardest boss in the game) you can not even have to fight if you play your cards right and its hard to do so (ie you have to perfect stealth a certain level without even using tranq darts or non lethal takedowns and thats only PART of getting his respect). Each person, enemy or friend has a file you can complete to learn about them, including a "secret dossier" which can often be used for a major gambit, but you can't get all of them for everyone in a single playthrough.

The only downside to the game is the somewhat cumbersome control mechanics (ie you can't drag bodies) and was originally buggy (Obsidian developed I think, Sega produced), but it is an amazing example of a story based game that should be the benchmark for interactive, meaningful choice and depth based storytelling.

Pyrian:

Nazrel:
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rolling back accomplishments.

Oh, those.

It seemed obvious they'd only gain you a moments respite.

Most games that say they do have branching storylines, do branch. But the branches all form back on the one ending.

True Crime did it well. You could play it and never come across the supernatural stuff. Plus, it was a great sequel to Big Trouble In Little China.

Morrowind was is the epitome of this problem. You have to choose between one of three houses to progress. Which one should you choose? Wrong question because the story line ends up the same so it's irrelevant. I find it funny that Yahtzee says that Witcher 3 had branching choices. There was only about 5 choice in the whole game and two affected the ending. The other three gave a slideshow of the consequences at the end of that storyline. They didn't matter much to the story or ending. Witcher 2 had real consequences to divergent paths

Eh... There are games that do branching right. They are called Visual Novels.
And they achieve this by having actual branches that are wildly different, and having a whole lot of different endings.
True branching.

But they never suffer from the skipped content. Why? Because there's also a True Ending. True Ending is a longer and bigger and better ending to the story that actually explains everything. And you have to find it. Sometimes you even have to unlock it by getting Good Endings on all of the branches. Because they all compose a single story, and you have to know what happened before you are ready for the True Ending.

There's always this meta-game, that implies that one ending is not enough.
You absolutely can do it in triple-A. I don't know if you can sell it, but you can do it. Allow actual branching fueled by players choices, get them an ending that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions, and nudge them to explore further.

Now the big difference between VNs and other games, is that games have gameplay that unlike text cannot be skipped.
For this reason it might be useful to unveil the whole decision tree to the player at some point, allowing them to start the game at the precise point where there's still an unexplored choice left.

Dues Ex (the first one) was nice that your actions within the mission affected the debriefing at least and I think it did it best in terms of choices affecting the future.
That it allowed me to complete quests in a variety (3?) of ways. Kill, steal or assist to get to the next quest. When there was a room full of NPCs and I killed them all and the game didn't Game Over me but instead I got yelled at by my boss and later I was given stun darts instead of ammo. (I still managed to kill people despite the useless darts. Jokes on him.)

Choices with consequences in this situation are nice because the major affects are immediate and the lasting effects are minor. Which is probably how it should be. And only IF you choose a single style of play through an entire game regardless of the consequences or difficulty should reward a specific unique ending.
Kill everyone every time, innocent and guilty, prisoners and allies? "Everyone is dead" isn't the happy ending where everyone celebrates. Nobody died? Never detected pure stealth? That sort of thing should be recognized.
What you said to a variety of important-in-the-moment NPCs shouldn't really.

Vanguard Bandits, from way back on the Playstation 1, did pretty well as far as branching paths go. It was a turn-based tactical strategy where everybody was piloting mech suits. Somewhat similar to the Front Mission series (I remember 3 having a very big branch), or a mix of Fire Emblem and Super Robot Wars Original Generation.

Anyway, there's some generic 'Kingdom versus Empire' conflict going on, and you end up on one side or the other. The split happens right after mission 3 of 20, so almost the whole game changes from one side to the other. There is also a third branch available later in the game, and a grand total of 5 endings. There are some minor choices sprinkled throughout, some determining if you're going to Mission Kingdom9A or Kingdom9B next (for example) or if potential allies will join your team or not. Personally, I played through the game twice (once K and once E) then looked up what the other options had been online.

I'd also echo Alpha Protocol, as has been said before. I was a green recruit who tried to stealth the first half of every mission, failed horribly, and ended up going loud and getting shot at many times in the process. Still fun though.

I'm inclined to agree. For me, Deus Ex Human Revolution did choice well but did little narrative choice. The choice was in upgrades, which greatly affected gameplay. Upgrades gave you new options, not just made you better at something, such as piling up heavy bins to climb over walls, hacking robots to fight for you, or briefly made you invisible to bypass security systems. Non-sandbox games designers aiming for freedom should concentrate on gameplay.

Deus Ex and D.E Invisible War had pretty good branching paths. Human Revolution not so much. I don't think. The end sequence monologues philosophical meandering made the last Matrix movie seem like the ABCs.

Witcher 2 did it best I think. Depending on your early choices, you experienced entirely different maps later on. For me, that's what makes a branching game truly branching.

Not one mention of Heavy fucking Rain?!

http://heavyrain.wikia.com/wiki/Endings

trunkage:
Morrowind was is the epitome of this problem. You have to choose between one of three houses to progress. Which one should you choose? Wrong question because the story line ends up the same so it's irrelevant.

Or you can do none of that, kill Vivec, forge the Wraithguard with the help of the last remaining dwarf, and sort shit out yourself. While it's true the ending is the same it's still a huge departure from the main questline. My only gripe is that there was no option to join Dagoth Ur or take his power for yourself.

This is a deep topic with a lot of theory and discussion to be had. I'll barely be scratching the surface, but I hope the points come across.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
I suppose you can't really expect much, especially in triple-A, because if they did actually do a real branching story, real Choose Your Own Adventure style, then that would mean having to create six or seven different stories as well as all the necessary content and assets for them, and then most players will only ever see one. In practise, all you can usually expect from this kind of thing is a change of dialogue. And I dunno about you, but I'd expect a bit more from the way the games bang on about it.

I disagree with all of it, even from what I imagine that you mean by a "real branching story".

If there's anyone to do this, it would be a triple-A company, because they have the resources, experience and talent to pull it off.
Stories and art work are a dime a dozen, so instead you should be thinking about execution and presentation.
If art assets should be a concern, you can creatively reuse and apply these to create completely new areas. If you manage development and create a "building block" design from the start, you can even do it easily, at which point it becomes assembly line work (meaning it just takes time, but you can have almost anyone do it).
I'd be more worried about paying voice actors and even then you can just use new blood or even in-house employees as long as you have a sound studio and patience.

You need to ask yourself some questions about what you want and, more importantly, need from a branching path game (for the sake of argument let's assume this is a Deus Ex or Dark Souls kind of game where you spend a lot of time per area with calculated combat).
You want the game to have completely different assets, but do you need more than a different level path and enemy arrangement to be satisfied with the representation of your choice?
Do you need a complete manuscript of dialogue and responses in order to have it be worthwhile, or could you be satisfied with a voiceless protagonist and instead make your choices through actions?
Would you like 5 or 6 paths with new content that you could explore, or would you instead just want a few major choices to make (or leave alone) along with a few surprises?

Let's go away from the nebulous "true branching story" and instead talk about something simpler, like choice validation.
As examples:
The (original) Fallout end slides and narrated paragraphs which tell you what happened in the end.
Mass Effect dialogues and character appearances across the latter two games.

These are low cost and effort validations that leave an impression or impact on the player for their choices. I don't know about you, but I felt validated and satisfied knowing that I had made a difference at the cost of some risk, during my travels.

My bottom line is the following:
You don't need some crazy amount of added content in order to achieve the same effect and even if you do, it doesn't need to be expensive. Sandbox games are perfect examples of meticulously crafted worlds with some of the blandest and most boring gameplay in the history of games.
Apologizing on behalf of companies that it being inordinately expensive should somehow be the case, is a bad thing to do, especially in a time where half a forum of fanboys will rabidly defend their favourite developers. They are all subject to scrutiny.

Thank you for bringing up this subject. I'd like to request more of the same regarding mainstreaming and the effects it has had on game design, with examples from the last decade or so.
It is my opinion that developers have become too focused on the golden middle way for profit and are dumping too many titles on us that could have been far superior, had they only focused more on the dream and experience.

The term "branching storyline" or "branching path" definitely seems to be a mistake in this particular form of game. As Yahtzee poitned out, when the story is kept as linear as a film would be, the alterations one can make do seem to be superficial at best. A more appropriate term for this form of game design might be a "divergent storyline/divergent path" style. When I hear the term "branch" I naturally think of a tree branch, where limbs sprout off at intervals, leading off in their own direction, perhaps having additional limbs before eventually each coming to their own end point. They don't constantly loop back in on themselves (not normally anyway).

I think the term "divergent storyline/path" would be more appropriate and less misleading here. The way the game seems to progress is like having a hallway that goes in one direction, while occasionally having a divider come up that splits it in two (perhaps more, but usually just two). Each sub-hallway is parallel to the other(s) but each one has a few different features, like maybe one has some pictures hung on it while another has carpeting, etc. But they all go in the same direction, still following the main hallway and eventually converge again at some point down the line, with additional dividers someplace further down the hallway that do the same thing. Eventually the hallway comes to an ending common area with two or more doors on the far side.

If this is how a game developer decides to structure their game, personally I think that's fine. But they shouldn't make it sound like their game fully embodies the butterfly effect when all the various paths you can take habitually reach a mutual desitnation. Like if a game had a moment where it forced you to determine which of 2-3 team mates to save before you pursue the primary antagonist to his hideout. The team mate chosen may determine whether you chase him in a helicopter or in a speedboat (because one's your pilot and one's your sailor) but you're still going to end up at the island stronghold regardless and chase down the big bad for the final showdown. Maybe in the ending scene just before you shoot the villain and send him falling into the active volcano, you might flash back to the team mate who died and will say "This is for..." and then say their respective name, but in the end Evil Mastermind still gets the sacrificial virgin treatment. The ending, in all relevant ways, is the same, the epilogue still has you visiting a grave, and all that's changed is the name the sculptor had to chisel into the headstone.

While I don't want to reopen old wounds, looking back I think this relates strongly to the backlash of outrage over the Mass Effect 3 ending. The devs made that game's "branching storyline" and its multiple endings one of its major selling points, arguably its biggest. ABut ultimately it only had three, which were all identical in appearance save for a color scheme and a few NPC cameos. I think, and this has probably been said before, in which case I agree with whoever said it first, the problem was less with the number of endings and more about the lack of effort to give the players DIFFERENT endings for going to the effort of deliberating and making hard decisions, many of them about characters they might have become pesonally invested in. I don't like the fact fans tried to demand a new/different ending; I believe in artistic integrity and whatever an artist decides to do, that's their choice to make and they shouldn't cave into peer pressure and compromise their artistic vision to appeal to the masses. That's how we get the design-by-committee, fast-food style drek that's dull as dirt.

But on the same note, I don't think whatever choice the artists' DO make should be immune to criticism. If they make a bad choice, they should get called out on it, and touting "branching storypaths" and whipping people up with the promise of multiple, vastly differing climaxes, only to fob people off with a half-hearted cop-out is a serious fuck-up. Yeah it would have been a big task to come up with three unique endings and a selection of epilogue clips that might play depending on which decision you made at this or that point. But this is Mass Effect 3 we're talking about; the ending to (and I may sound a bit like a fanboy here, but I've only played a bit of ME3 multiplayer, so that doesn't count for me, I'm just going by the series' legacy here) an epic sci-fi trilogy with a huge dedicated fanbase. The ending to a series like that deserves to be a titanic effort. It NEEDS to be a titanic effort; you don't end an intergalactic oddessy where the fate of galaxies hangs in the balance on a single firecraccker. You end it with a full 20-30 minute fireworks show with a brass band playing.

So long story short, I have to agree with Yahtzee; if you're going to tell everybody you're doing a branching storyline, actually make it BRANCH. Otherwise, just pick a plot and stick to it.

Games like The Walking Dead, Life is Strange, and Beyond: Two Souls are all games that really just boil down to choices at the end that can be made regardless of how you've been handling the story up until that point. I mean, the running joke about Tell Tale games is that the phrase 'x will remember that' seems important, but it really, really isn't. I think that's why I had so much fun with Tales From the Borderlands, since it had a self-aware sense of humor about all of that.

What I really hate is when one choice is obviously either good/noble/self-sacrificing or bad/evil/extremely selfish. It's like games don't know how to write in that in-between space that makes up most of life, and in titles like Mass Effect, there's really no benefit to riding the middle-line. Even more disgusting is when you're presented with a choice like the final, binary decision at the end of Life is Strange, where there is a choice that the developers obviously want you to make...

Yahtzee Croshaw:
...because if they did actually do a real branching story, real Choose Your Own Adventure style, then that would mean having to create six or seven different stories as well as all the necessary content and assets for them, ...

I've basically been saying exactly this ever since Mass Effect, and even moreso since Life is Strange. LiS heavily advertised the "consequences will matter" but in the end, you get a nightmare/vision sequence where it judges you for your choices but the entire game is ultimately down to one of two choices. And it's a very grand moral dilemma of a choice, but my choices throughout just didn't mean a damn thing.
I've been telling my friends that in order for this kind of thing to work, these games need like NINE different endings. Maybe then it will feel like my choices will matter.

SmallHatLogan:

trunkage:
Morrowind was is the epitome of this problem. You have to choose between one of three houses to progress. Which one should you choose? Wrong question because the story line ends up the same so it's irrelevant.

Or you can do none of that, kill Vivec, forge the Wraithguard with the help of the last remaining dwarf, and sort shit out yourself. While it's true the ending is the same it's still a huge departure from the main questline. My only gripe is that there was no option to join Dagoth Ur or take his power for yourself.

There was once a plotline to join The Sixth House (I think it was called? It's been years) but was cut due to deadlines and such.

Nazrel:
Ogre Tactics: Let us cling together, was one of the best games for the impact of actions and branching narratives, and it originally came out in the mid 90's on the SNES.(They did release a remake for the PSP.)

The Banner Saga did a decent job to (at least as far as the first installment is concerned, not in a position to judge the second part.)

I've been hesitant about getting Banner Saga (just for money reasons). How long would you say it is? Was it good?

IndignantMole:

Nazrel:
Ogre Tactics: Let us cling together, was one of the best games for the impact of actions and branching narratives, and it originally came out in the mid 90's on the SNES.(They did release a remake for the PSP.)

The Banner Saga did a decent job to (at least as far as the first installment is concerned, not in a position to judge the second part.)

I've been hesitant about getting Banner Saga (just for money reasons). How long would you say it is? Was it good?

I thought it was pretty good, it is however just part 1 of the game (part 2 is out on steam, but I'm waiting for the gog one), it took about 14 hours, though you might want to replay it to have things play out differently.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here