View Single Post

Default 

February 8th, 2010, 09:56
Originally Posted by Grandor Dragon View Post
The problem with the decision "killing vs. saving the girl" is that gameplaywise, there are no consequences. Do I get more Adam now, or less Adam plus some other reward (ammo, IIRC) later? That's not enough to make cruel decisions attractive. If being cruel would lead to a true gameplay advantage, now that would have been interesting. "Good"players could still catch up later, perhaps by getting the reward after the big plot twist (don't wish to spoil), but would have a harder time for a larger proportion of the game.
Except then your choice wouldn't be based on what's right and what's wrong but on "what do I get out of it", thus removing any morality aspect of the choice.

"Chess in particular had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the kings lounged about doing nothing that always got to him; if only the pawns united, maybe talked the rooks around, the whole board could've been a republic in a dozen moves." - Commander Vimes in Thud! by Terry Pratchett
fatBastard() is offline

fatBastard()

fatBastard()'s Avatar
Hello, I'm a Zombaholic

#25

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Just outside of Copenhagen
Posts: 778