The Bird or the Cage?

A lot of video games these days advertise themselves as being all about choice. But, a lot of the time, the choices that are presented to you bear little consequence to the actual story. A stirking example of this is Bioshock Infinite. Now before I say anything bad about this game, it is of note that it is by far one of my favorite games of all time. But, there is a moment in the game where it asks you if Elizibeth should wear the Bird, or the Cage. Both of these have strong symbolism of elements of the story, but ultimately the only thing the choice does is show you that

which is cool and all, but none of the choices matter in the long run. The course of events never changes as a result of anything you do. Even in the original Bioshock, there's little incentive to harvest Little Sisters over saving them, because one of the best Plasmids in the game is a gift from the Little Sisters!

How do you feel about this fake choice that seems to be in a lot of games these days?

They are a complete waste of time, cause they don't deliver different results if you pick one over the other. Get rid of these "choices", I loved Bioshock: Infinite but this thing you mentioned clearly gave me a huge disappointment over this game which is a shame.

Pokemon is pretty guilty of this as well. They ask if you want to be a Pokemon trainer or similar questions and then if you say no they just repeat the question til you say yes instead of say creating a new situation to convince your character to go on their journey. Most of these are skipped over even so why even include them?

Necrum said:

Pokemon is pretty guilty of this as well. They ask if you want to be a Pokemon trainer or similar questions and then if you say no they just repeat the question til you say yes instead of say creating a new situation to convince your character to go on their journey. Most of these are skipped over even so why even include them?

Click to expand...

Exactly. To even think of the possibilities the games could have if they (tried to) tied different events to a choice you make instead of a tiny visual thing or being forced to pick one option only and get it in a endless loop if you pick the choice the game doesn't want you to pick (linearity anyone?). Most of the games I played did the choice mechanic right, though it isn't always implemented in a way that the consequences are massive. In StarCraft II: HotS's campaign you have the choice to pick between worlds after a few missions into the game with the only difference being the units you get from the missions (for instance you unlock Banelings earlier than Hydralisks) and perhaps a line or two. And if you complete one, you still have to do the other to advance ( you kinda have to to get all units hurrdurr)

This is actually one reason I like rogue like games. Even though it's more small scale, every choice you make matters and could result in death if you're not careful. Papers, Please is also pretty good about choice, featuring a lot of possible endings based on how you perform or interact with certain people. You can let in all the terrorists if you want to.

I think the epitome of this is Telltale's games, specifically The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us. Especially since every single episode starts with the biggest lie ever: "This game series adapts to the choices you make. The story is tailored by how you play." If you've played these games before, or rather, if you've played through them multiple times and tried to go down a different path like I have, you know what I mean. Despite the disclaimer, the story is actually the same every time - all your choices really do is change the immediate reactions of certain characters around you, but even that doesn't carry over - if you set out to make a certain character hate or like you with your dialogue choices, if the game intends for you to be friends, you will be friends. If the game intends for them to screw you over no matter what, it doesn't matter if you were nice to them or not the entire game.

Also, you occasionally get to prolong a determinant character's death so that they can die at a (slightly) later time.

I did read an article that defends these rather pointless choices we're supposed to make in games, though. They say it better than I do, so I'll just quote:

Choice in games is about the act of choosing. […] 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.

Click to expand...

The Walking Dead is not about choices, it's about decisions. It's about making the right decision in a world where everything goes wrong. It's about doing what you think is right, even when faced with absolute despair, even though all hope seems lost, and even though this bleak world doesn't give a single **** about your decision. But you have to do it. For Clementine.

Click to expand...

They are, of course, just talking about TWD here though - I have not played Bioshock: Infinite so I don't know if these statements can apply to the choices in it, but I think it's a fair point. I don't necessarily agree with it though, because this is a game that literally constantly reminds you that your choices matter, so they should hold up on that end at least a little. The ending of season 2 is promising, though.

I should probably clarify that I really do like these games - after all, it is about the story and they do tell one heck of a story.

And to their credit, it would probably be quite difficult to make a game that actually does change according to all your choices. Maybe not impossible though - as I recall Heavy Rain did a really great job with making you feel like your choices mattered.

Grand Theft Auto has had some notorious choice-based storylines, in IV and V. None of them affect the world or gameplay all that much, beyond disabling a few features or eliminating a character. I don't feel like these are proper displays of choice. Mass Effect, arguably, is the same. Very little of the choice made in the games TRULY changes what happens.

Make a choice -> Choice-based consequence of insignificant real change (beyond the scope of your personal squad) -> Only ending

Consider that no matter what you do in regards to amassing forces in any of the three games changes much about the universe, beyond character death. You can argue that a few choices wind up costing the lives of entire cultures, but it doesn't result in any real, in-game consequence for your final battle/mission. Destroying such-and-such civilization is never really displayed.

I wish there was a game where you made a choice and the entire game changed as a result. Just imagine deciding to either release a zombie virus or destroying it. If you choose to release it, over the game, the entire NPC population turns and it's basically akin to Red Dead: Undead Nightmare. If you destroy it, the population remains human but maybe certain places are ghost towns because the government had to kill those infected. (Just a thought, I know it's not great) That's tough to pull off well, but I tend to wish there were more consequences for decisions in games. I'm not trashing on Mass Effect or GTA, but when it comes down to it, the choices you make don't change the end-game results.

I like some of the choices you make in the Fallout series, but they are never properly showcased. You do all the work in 3 to revitalize the area, but you don't see much difference. I would liked to have seen green grass begin to grow or clean water, population increases, stuff like that.

I don't think a lot of what I am hoping for is realistic to expect, especially with how much work goes into creating games, but it's a dream-idea of mine. :)

I think in the case of Mass Effect, it's not that your choices don't matter, it's that they determine the personality of your character. It even blocks off certain conversation choices if it has been determined that your character is too paragon to ever do that thing. But, again, this can also be used as the biggest fault of the system. You could play the entire series as a guy who shows mercy on everyone, and then at virtually any time just decide to be a vicious killer. This pretty much goes completely against the character that you've been roleplaying for 3 games! It's a situation where the choices are flawed rather than meaningless, imo.

Necrum said:

I think in the case of Mass Effect, it's not that your choices don't matter, it's that they determine the personality of your character. It even blocks off certain conversation choices if it has been determined that your character is too paragon to ever do that thing. But, again, this can also be used as the biggest fault of the system. You could play the entire series as a guy who shows mercy on everyone, and then at virtually any time just decide to be a vicious killer. This pretty much goes completely against the character that you've been roleplaying for 3 games! It's a situation where the choices are flawed rather than meaningless, imo.

Click to expand...

Yeah, an entirely different beast is the Renegade/Paragon system. So much potential, but used less than I'd like. There's some real opportunity to craft a completely evil/morally righteous Shepard and I think they could've done a lot more to make the Paragon/Renegade system play into the world and how you were viewed.

Through Mass Effect 1, I was 100% GOOD. Never made bad calls or bad dialogue choices, but in 2, I decided my Shepard was willing to be evil at times to necessitate his goals. By the third, he was a morally good, but flawed hero.

First and foremost, I would like to say that I enjoy games that give us the chance to make choices... that is, if they do wind up making some decent amount direction change in terms of progression and general story-line. Personally, I feel that this adds more realism to video games, as we're always making decisions in real like--whether they be big or small--which affect all our occurrences one way or another.

When I'm done with main plot, games like those always give me some feeling of replaying, so that I would be able to choose different options and see how different things are. Usually, I never stop playing a particular video game after I'm finished with story-line, I start again from beginning, and this makes sure that I do just that.

As for games having fake choices--things that don't matter in long run--I'm not exactly too bothered by it, in most cases, but it could still be a little disappointing at times. When such things happen, I try my best forgetting them and pay more attention to whatever's going on on-screen.

I personally enjoyed the choices in Mass Effect. Yeah, the weak ending did let me down quite a bit, but being able to see my decisions from the first game carry over to the third was pretty cool.

The choices in TWD, though, they felt like a bit of a disappointment. Considering the whole game was all about "adapting" to your decisions, there was very little you could change (I do think that it had a great story though).

The fact is, for the time being, games can only provide the illusion of choice. I don't think AI has evolved to the point that the whole created world of the game, or the story, can constantly react to the choices made by the player.

Juno said:

as I recall Heavy Rain did a really great job with making you feel like your choices mattered.

Click to expand...

Actually, the story of the game was filled with plot-holes, specially if you chose certain options over others. The decisions did change the fate of characters, but it couldn't fix the story.

Necrum said:

A stirking example of this is Bioshock Infinite. Now before I say anything bad about this game, it is of note that it is by far one of my favorite games of all time. But, there is a moment in the game where it asks you if Elizibeth should wear the Bird, or the Cage. Both of these have strong symbolism of elements of the story, but ultimately the only thing the choice does is show you that

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use this particular game as an example of inconsequential choice. Reason being that a lot of Bioshock Infinite is about illusion of choice, both as a game and as a part of the plot. It was meant to sort of represent the idea that regardless of what you pick, the outcome will be the same.

This is supported by several similar instances in the early game, such as the...baseball throwing, was it? When you had three (or two choices), but regardless of what you choose, the exact same thing happens. Also when the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of the game ask you whether you pick heads or tails, the developers are aware that on another playthrough or by loading another save, the player will try to go back and pick the opposite, only to lead to the exact same result.

And a certain plot point also plays with this idea, and then it takes everything the player has experienced and learned and decides to introduce a new option which, ironically, is not so much the player's choice at all:


Another game that plays with this idea and directly ties it to gaming is the Stanley Parable, which I highly recommend.

For me, it really crushed me to find out that the item you pick at that point didn't have any effect though, because I thought about it a lot. I mean A LOT. It didn't even have to be a big difference. It could have been the difference between figuring out the control code for songbird or fighting him at the end. But it wasn't. Iirc, the dlc had no such decisions. In my mind it seems like they learned something and left that aspect out. By the way, not fighting songbird personally was the biggest disappointment I had while playing the game, but that's not really the topic.

EDIT: I just thought of this, but also the idea presented in the game is that you always reach the same point by the end, but how you get there can change. But they never tap into this or use it effectively. There is no difference in the journey no matter what you do. That is what makes that particular choice pointless in my mind.

Necrum said:

For me, it really crushed me to find out that the item you pick at that point didn't have any effect though, because I thought about it a lot. I mean A LOT. It didn't even have to be a big difference. It could have been the difference between figuring out the control code for songbird or fighting him at the end. But it wasn't. Iirc, the dlc had no such decisions. In my mind it seems like they learned something and left that aspect out. By the way, not fighting songbird personally was the biggest disappointment I had while playing the game, but that's not really the topic.

EDIT: I just thought of this, but also the idea presented in the game is that you always reach the same point by the end, but how you get there can change. But they never tap into this or use it effectively. There is no difference in the journey no matter what you do. That is what makes that particular choice pointless in my mind.

Click to expand...

But the thing is that they knew about this. That was the point, it was about the illusion of choice rather than choice itself, which is indicated at various points in the story. Actually allowing for choices to make branching consequences wouldn't make much sense in the context of BI. I haven't played the DLC, but I don't think it was about the same thing, in much the same way as B1 and 2 weren't.

As for it being about the journey, that is an idea that looms over the entirety of the plot. Or, you could say, the idea represents the plot itself. Not the gameplay, though.

I think the absolute perfect example of this is Tales of Xillia 2. This game makes the protagonist into a semi-silent hero type where you get to make his verbal decisions for him, only to ultimately not have ANY OF THEM MATTER.

Quite seriously, every time a main story element requests that the player select a choice (1 or 2) they are almost always different sentences that mean the same exact thing. For instance, at one point there is a choice between "Yes" and "I guess so". Wtf kind of choice is that?! Unacceptable. This aspect of the game really rustled my jimmies.

However, it wasn't all negative. Because this same mechanic is used in the sidequests where choosing one option over another grants you affinity with a particular character and this I VERY much like. Developing relationships with the characters feels really interesting and I honestly liked this part of the game more than the actual story! When I ran out of sidequests to do, I would grunt in disappointment because I would have to finish another chapter of the main story in order for me to unlock more sidequests for me to do. That's dumb.

Okay, how about a better example then? In Fallout 3 there are some dialogue options that are in the exact same list, and yield the exact same responses whichever you choose. This is also true in Mass Effect, where many voice options between the Paragon and Renegade options receive the exact same response, with no change in tone from the responder. This to me is the more obvious pointless choice in the Mass Effect series. Mass Effect is a game that advertises the fact that choice shapes the story, but I noticed this lack of difference all over the place when I played Renegade, and it really left me not wanting to complete a full run as the Renegade.

The main reason I use Bioshock Infinite as the prime example is that the choice you make does have an impact on the game in a way, but it's so small that almost no one would notice unless they were looking for it. I realize the game is about illusion of choice, but this was a choice that probably could have been cut if not for the bonding moment with Elizabeth.

Danger Zone said:

Actually, the story of the game was filled with plot-holes, specially if you chose certain options over others. The decisions did change the fate of characters, but it couldn't fix the story.

Click to expand...

Ah, it's been a good few years since I played it, if there were many plot holes I doubt I can remember them. I think my point still stands, though - compared to most games that give you pointless options disguised as meaningful choices, the actions and dialogue you pick in Heavy Rain definitely had more of an impact in driving the story in a different direction.

I agree with what you're saying though, games are simply not intuitive enough to adapt perfectly to our choices, but I still think Heavy Rain made a much better effort to do that than other games that supposedly have significant choices.

machomuu said:

Another game that plays with this idea and directly ties it to gaming is the Stanley Parable, which I highly recommend.

Click to expand...

I second that - it's a really hilarious bit of satire that pokes fun at false choices and linearity in video games.

The funny thing is that The Stanley Parable is probably the best choice driven "game" I've ever seen, lol! It's basically the equivalent of a first person choose your own adventure book!