So I was mostly thinking about choices like "Hammer or sword" where the options can be
Meaningless: The hammer and sword are functionally identical, your choice doesn't matter
Balanced: While there are contexts where the sword or hammer perform better, they're a preference
Non-subjective: The hammer is simply worse in every context and you will be punished for your choice
But this is actually a way more interesting design space, because there are a lot of "side with the fascists"-type decisions in gaming, and some of them have failure cases in this exact form, too!
You get a dialogue option to say "yes" to joining the fascists. The fascists laugh at you and attack no matter what you respond.
This one is morally fine, but strictly speaking falls in the "your choice doesn't matter" camp. I don't consider it a failure though, because it provides characterization that the fascists, in fact, are not people you get to negotiate with.
You can join the fascists, but all it does is give you the fascist uniform as a gear option where the other options give you different uniforms. It has no further impact on the story.
This one, however, is bad. Your character just chose to join up with fascists, and it was presented as just a funny little aesthetic choice with no long-term weight to it.
You can join the fascists. Upon joining the fascists, you get the secret lore that says the fascists are actually the good guys. You get different cutscenes where the fascists help you through the main plot.
This is extremely bad. Your agency has been respected in a sense, but the narrative conspires to ensure that you, the player, are such a hecking valid and correct hero that you simply knew fascism was good all along! This way of handling the "join the fascists" choice is a red flag so hard it calls into question the politics of the developers.
You can join the fascists. When you do so, half the party members leave. There is no feasible replacement for them, you can't get them back, and aside from a small number of fascist NPCs now being non-hostile, you have gained nothing.
Morally, this implementation is hilarious and correct. It's also a choice you never want to make if you're wanting to do well in the game, it's a strictly worse choice than refusing to join the fascists.
You can join the fascists. Joining the fascists alters the trajectory of the plot, your actions result in misery and suffering for characters you'd otherwise help and grow fond of. The new allies you gain are evil, callous shits, and the narrative is, to a great extent, about how fascism is repugnant.
This, to be clear, is not a "strictly worse" outcome in the game design sense like the point above. It's worse for the characters in the story, but it's also player agency being respected, in the sense that you are allowed to make the choice, have it influence the story, and not be treated like a child who can't face the consequences of your actions. It's also a tremendously expensive way to resolve the choice, because you're now writing an entire extra story!
And, finally, there's the choice the developers had all along:
Simply never give the player the opportunity to join the fascists.
This one will feel like more agency than several of the options above, because here's the thing: The player's choices are always constrained by what the game is built to accommodate, and waving a choice in front of the player and then rendering it meaningless, rather than providing the illusion of choice, highlights this fundamental constraint. The vast majority of players didn't want to join the fascists until you gave them the option, and so if you're not going to make that choice say anything worthwhile, why provide it at all?
turnnoffyourmind
jimmyeatworldofficial
blakekathryn
yousharknotpass
ellievsbear
