If I have to play a story focused or rpg game more than once I'm not buying it. Too many other good games to waste my time on artistically replaying some garbage again because the dev is scared to commit to good writing.

>>743382819
No

No, I do throw one however when the game doesn't explain you shit, and it might as well take you 100 playthroughs to unlock everything unless you wiki it.

>>743382819
That depends, if it's the point of the game to have a different story that branches according to your choices, then i don't have a problem and it's kino.

But there are also some cringe concepts, like take Persona 5 or Metaphor Refantazio for example, you can only find and face against a bonus strong boss if you're on a second playthrough. Nigga those games takes 100 hours to beat I'm not playing them twice just to face a boss. Why not let me battle against the boss at the end of my first playthrough?

>>743382819
No because I am not a zoomer

>>743382819
yes but i also have autism
first thing i do before i launch a new game is google "game XY missable"

File: 10815.png (1.37 MB, 845x799)

1.37 MB PNG

>>743382819
>most of the gameplay is still the same on a second playthrough except with some exclusive stuff from the things you missed

>>743382819
No, I throw one when a game expects you to do fucking esoteric shit to find progression. And if by "tantrum" you mean looking things up on the guide.
I just experienced something like this, except the game:
>expects you to wait until sunday night in-game, it won't work any other time
>wants you to go to a specific restaurant in the city, while you could be doing 50 different things
>at the last moment decide you don't want to go to the place after all and turn back after seeing the unique prompt
>THEN it plays the event you're supposed to do
>there is absolutely zero hint to go there at any point whatsoever, I guess players are supposed to stumble into it by chance out of sheer boredom/desperation and trying absolutely everything out for the Xth time and just be lucky enough to try this place out on sunday
>this is also only possible after doing another specific event, being there on the right day too early won't do shit
Mandatory for progression by the way. Completely locks you out of doing any story stuff until you find this.
I learned that you have to repeat this shit next week too but use your phone instead. Again, fifty(not an exaggeration) other options, and you're supposed to find the right one at the right moment by sheer chance.

>>743382819
>aww isn't this avoidable tragedy sad
>if only you had [insert wiki page here] to prevent it
>better replay the whole game for the happy ending
There's like 3 games in existence that avoid this. The rest can go fuck themselves.

>buy a product (game)
>expect to see everything in the game
>game has no difficulty options that would allow this
>stuck with bullshit difficulty and not able to see the whole game
my only problem with fromsoft games
i used cheats to be able to beat sekiro, i want my money's worth

No, but I think there is a real point of criticism here.

First, reactivity in that vein is simply overrated: The Witcher 2 for example has almost completely different Act 2 main and side quests (the locations are almost completely shared, but you barely visit the other path's areas) and quite substantially different Act 3 content, but for what? Both of them are worth seeing and doing, but also, the game feels essentially an act short, so by making two different versions of Act 2, all playthroughs are a letdown, so the 40 something hours or whatever would have been better spent NOT having the branching. Also, the opportunity cost aside, I don't see much point other than "let's have branching paths so players will get 20h+2*20h+5h=65 hours of content, instead of 20h+20h+20h+5h=65 hours of content": there's little in-character stakes for either option (there's kinda sorta a hint that where Roche is going will lead you to Triss, maybe possibly), the game jumps through hoops to justify Iorveth even as an option, and the game even makes it explicitly clear (might even have been a popup telling you this) that this is "The" choice, which is the sort of design language that devalues making choices you have to live with, because you know the developers wouldn't construct an entire "path" just to troll you, but also, it also implicitly means that the other choices that aren't so advertised don't have consequences of note. TW1 (even TW3 to an extent) in contrast throws a lot of curve balls, precisely because it doesn't try to have two different versions of an act.

>>743386170
Second, tying narrative choices to mechanical rewards in the sense that "they'd all be worthwhile", as the picture gestures towards, I think is just a sign of self-contradictory design philosophy. I think there is value in story branches that only achieve a partial victory, or a victory otherwise defined, or outright lead to defeat. Tragedies can be compelling for starters! Or seeing the events unfold as a henchman while some other guy is the king and the chosen one. Or whatever. But if you start tying them to mechanical rewards then the mechanical incentives and narrative incentives (+perhaps roleplay incentives, a distinct category from "what story I the player want to play through") start pulling to different directions. Maybe you want to try a sword+pistol playstyle but the pistol that buffs melee damage only appears in branch B and you wanted to play through A, so you'll be unsatisfied in any event.

And tying these two together, usually the decision to split off content to different branches is completely senseless for any other reason but to act as a justification for the split. What prevents you from walking to the area in path 3 if you take 1/2? Why should the game be balanced such that pistol+sword playstyle is only satisfying with a specific item (that items provide such bonuses is deranged anyhow, but that's a different topic of discussion)? Why is the survival of a companion tied to asking for payment for your trouble, not your ability to defeat the villain's henchmen in combat?

>>743386305
>>743386170
I'm not against branching or CnC per se, but the sort of implementation OPs pic related is gesturing towards genuinely seems misguided if not incoherent. Good examples I think include e.g.
>actual RP and emergent narrative focus in games like Crusader Kings or Dwarf Fortress (rather than scripted "paths")
>underlying simulation that means that if you take your time you might miss some stuff or even fail in Star Control 2 or permadeath in Legionary's Life meaning that not all characters are cut out to try to achieve feats like Corona Muralis (but it is designed from ground up to be replayable and replayed, an entirely different thing from scissoring out morsels and then deciding to make them path-exclusive)
>mythic paths in Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (which, rather than begging to justify the player picking this or one path with some "perk", justify the sort of choices, like wanting to play as a lawtist or a murderhobo, that the player might have wanted to do before being presented with the mythic choice)
>personally impactful (but politically irrelevant, ergo no much "visible consequences") consequences to unexpected seemingly unrelated acts in The Witcher (like "do you give some elves the crates" leading to death of a witness in a murder mystery you're trying to solve) while lacking contradictory mechanical incentives, which I think incentivizes the player to actually think through all their choices, even the ones that don't look like choices.

>more lines equals funny
OC started declining in quality in 2014.

>>743382819
Why can't people that see games as an immersion device and people that see games as puzzles to solve get along
You're both having fun

One also notes that I've honestly never ever seen this complaint even from zoomers, even from very "branching" games like Pathfinder, so if this has ever happened at all, I would guess that the complaint is really about bad design, not about not being able to follow a guide. Really, I would say guide-following is symptomatic of this kind of absurd design as it is.

File: caveman.gif (2.13 MB, 488x498)

2.13 MB GIF

>>743382819
>I JUST WANT THE BEST ITEMS AND THE BEST ENDING
There's nothing wrong with the player wanting this from a video game.

File: sonic forever.png (22 KB, 660x613)

22 KB PNG

>>743382819
Sonic 3 and Knuckles perfected this and nobody is man enough to acknowledge this

>>743382819
No, but I detest "hidden achievements"

ITT: autists with OCD

File: 1750557644361995.jpg (79 KB, 828x822)

79 KB JPG

>>743382819
It's a brown world problem

Spics and other various brown people do not have the mental capacity to solve even the most basic of gameplay and they don't have the creative imagination to even think up stuff on their own

The brown collective mass can only consume without retaining and always need everything fed to them

And gaming caters to them because they are the majority of the world.
You are not the audiance for gaming anymore