Can you explain why you think the game punishes the player for engaging in combat and killing enemies? I get that the events in the game may change but I’m not getting how that’s a punishment to the player.
You get a bad ending if you kill too many people, and the non-lethal option is just the chokehold for the most part. I bailed for the same reason the first few times I tried to play through the game. The morality system is really the games only critical flaw (or they need more non-lethal options)
Non-lethal also means avoidance rather than conflict. But ultimately, “bad ending” is subjective. You still save the princess, it’s just a more murdery vibe.
Also you get to kill the baddies yourself, it’s the good ending where most are killed for you right?
There’s also a lot of stuff throughout the game about how the city gets more corrupted, more rats everywhere, that sort of thing. Some of this makes some stuff harder, some of it is just vibes. But all of it is the designers very noticeably wagging their finger under your nose for engaging with the mechanics they made and actively encouraged you to engage with.
To me it feels more about consistency. The world aligns with your expressed ideology.
If you’re using the sneaking and non-lethal tools the world becomes a place that believes in the value of life, if you murder indiscriminately the world becomes a place of punishment, where nobody is innocent and the only way forward is to let a plague descend on the land.
Plus, arguably, the parts that get harder when you go lethal are balanced by the inherently more difficult nature of the non-lethal approach.
I guess it’s personal preference. I prefer for choices I make in the story to affect the outcome. If my gameplay has an affect, I feel like I’m being forced into a playstyle. I know it’s stupid, but I have trouble getting out of that thought process.
For me it’s similar to why I can never get into bayonetta or devil may cry, the scoring system for each encounter stresses me out. I just want to have fun
Appreciate the response. I feel that I’m in the minority when it comes to caring much about good or bad endings. Usually if a game has several endings I’ll replay it to get the other endings. I’ve never really felt that a “bad ending” was a punishment though. Even if I get immersed in the character I’m playing, I never felt as though I experienced the negative outcomes. I was playing Baldur’s Gate 3 with a friend and he was getting mad at me because I wasn’t playing lawfully good lol. That game was designed to keep progressing no matter what choices you make. You can kill the most important characters but the game keeps going. Yet he felt as though we would have to reload a previous save if I did something too “wrong”. Anyway, I just find the difference of opinion on the topic interesting lol sorry for the wall of text.
Can you explain why you think the game punishes the player for engaging in combat and killing enemies? I get that the events in the game may change but I’m not getting how that’s a punishment to the player.
You get a bad ending if you kill too many people, and the non-lethal option is just the chokehold for the most part. I bailed for the same reason the first few times I tried to play through the game. The morality system is really the games only critical flaw (or they need more non-lethal options)
Non-lethal also means avoidance rather than conflict. But ultimately, “bad ending” is subjective. You still save the princess, it’s just a more murdery vibe.
Also you get to kill the baddies yourself, it’s the good ending where most are killed for you right?
There’s also a lot of stuff throughout the game about how the city gets more corrupted, more rats everywhere, that sort of thing. Some of this makes some stuff harder, some of it is just vibes. But all of it is the designers very noticeably wagging their finger under your nose for engaging with the mechanics they made and actively encouraged you to engage with.
To me it feels more about consistency. The world aligns with your expressed ideology.
If you’re using the sneaking and non-lethal tools the world becomes a place that believes in the value of life, if you murder indiscriminately the world becomes a place of punishment, where nobody is innocent and the only way forward is to let a plague descend on the land.
Plus, arguably, the parts that get harder when you go lethal are balanced by the inherently more difficult nature of the non-lethal approach.
I guess it’s personal preference. I prefer for choices I make in the story to affect the outcome. If my gameplay has an affect, I feel like I’m being forced into a playstyle. I know it’s stupid, but I have trouble getting out of that thought process. For me it’s similar to why I can never get into bayonetta or devil may cry, the scoring system for each encounter stresses me out. I just want to have fun
Interesting, I’ve never considered choices and gameplay as separate things. Isn’t it more, I don’t know, immersive if gameplay and story are unified?
I’m not gonna disagree with you there, but personally sacrificing a bit of immersion here would be IMO more fun. I’m too extrinsicly motivated.
Appreciate the response. I feel that I’m in the minority when it comes to caring much about good or bad endings. Usually if a game has several endings I’ll replay it to get the other endings. I’ve never really felt that a “bad ending” was a punishment though. Even if I get immersed in the character I’m playing, I never felt as though I experienced the negative outcomes. I was playing Baldur’s Gate 3 with a friend and he was getting mad at me because I wasn’t playing lawfully good lol. That game was designed to keep progressing no matter what choices you make. You can kill the most important characters but the game keeps going. Yet he felt as though we would have to reload a previous save if I did something too “wrong”. Anyway, I just find the difference of opinion on the topic interesting lol sorry for the wall of text.