It's only ok when certain companies are mainstream. :)

Nothing wrong with mainstream as long as you know what not to expect.

Yeah. For example, actually good games.

I don’t think it’s about good or bad, but about accessibility and challenge. Mainstream games can be great or crap like any other, they just tend to be rather straightforward which is more about personal preference.

For instance, PB games are the opposite of mainstream and fans seem to enjoy that aspect of them.

Some of my favorite games are mainstream, but I tend to not like that aspect of them.

Well it is progress it was after all a BEEP.

He did say that, you're apparently just not very good at reading between the lines.;)

As for the game progressing, I don't care. Just call me when it's done.

Yes, but it's taking a long time :( I'm getting
impatient.

Straightforward like TW3? Too simple for your refined tastes? What a load of bollocks my dear DArt

Exactly, too straightforward. Extremely straightforward, in fact.

I'm sure it was a big challenge for you, though. I mean, following those red marks using witcher senses must have pushed your capacity to the limit ;)

You are a straightforward guy DArt so let me try to explain as simply as I'm able: choices and consequences. Can't recall a game (maybe with the exception of Project Andromeda) with such an amount of choices and meaningful consequences of those choices.

I think TW2 was on par as well. What's this Project Andromeda you speak of?

Temporary brain seizure JDR, I meant Alpha Protocol. And I agree about TW2.

Choices and consequence only really matter if you replay it. I played the game once and have no idea what consequences my choices had.

unfortunately for me, the game wasn't fun enough for a replay.

Yeah, I think TW2 must have the single most consequential example of choice and consequence, basically splitting the rest of the game in two. Or are there other games like that?

C&C absolutely matters whether you replay it or not. It could mean the death of one NPC vs another, for example, or having to face a particular enemy later on vs someone else.

Whether or not you know what the other choice would have brought is irrelevant.

Not to me it doesn’t.

If an Npc’s lives and I never know there was an option for them to die then it doesn’t matter to me.

If I play through again and that Npc’s dies, I’d think, Wow that’s pretty cool but if I never know that can happen that experience is lost on me and carries no weight.

You certainly have an interesting take on it. That's like saying the sky isn't blue because you're not looking at it, but ok.

I almost always replay a game at least once if I know it has significant C&C, and even if I don't replay it, it's inevitable to hear about the other choices through forums, etc, thus finding out exactly what the consequences of your choices were.

Not at that scale, but I think some games have tried in some way. For example might and magic 7 has a good and an evil path.
Age of decadence is 4 games into one but based mostly on your start.
Gothic 3 had the choice of siding with orcs or humans which affected the game play somewhat.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I've only played through it once, so can't say for certain, but Tyranny felt like it had good C&C. I usually felt like my decisions had impact in terms of areas I could explore and factions and genuine consequences for the overall story path etc.

errrrr… yes… except TW3 have a cut-scene at the end of every chapter where players choices and consequences of those choices are listed.