@aerion111
I guess I’m just more used to older JRPGs, where that wasn’t a big deal. (As newer ones don’t interest me much.) “Chrono Trigger” (a fav’ of mine.) had something similar to what you describe, but it only effects an early event in the game sort’ve.
Plus, as you said Zelda’s not an RPG, It’s an “Adventure” game.
@Beau Skunky
In specific cases, yeah.
But other than the THIEF case, it’s usually felt like less of a moral choice, and more just a way to trip up players that are used to how the games work.
The THIEF example does have people either going ‘eh, I’ll pay, I don’t want to be a jerk’ or ‘I’m in a hurry, possibly because I’m speedrunning. Screw it, I’m fine with getting marked a THIEF if I save ten seconds of ruby-grinding’ so that does have a bit of a choice.
But with a fine or something? I figure most people, at best, go ‘Oh. Hah, didn’t expect that. Nice meta-commentary’ and continue breaking other people’s pots without a second thought.
What I meant was that there are games out there where there’d be long-term consequences; Either an arbitrary ‘good/evil’ stat, or people start noticing you break pots so something changes later on (maybe you get arrested), heck maybe it just means people get poorer and so in the late-game that area of the world has worse stock in the shops and is generally portrayed as less prosperous than it would normally be.
In an RPG, where you’re supposed to feel like your choices matter (even if it’s often an illusion, coughDragon Agecough) you would be more likely to have to consider breaking them or not.
@aerion111
Actually, I recall in “Windwaker” that one rich guy would call you out on it, and charge you if you break his fancy expressive vaces. Also, if you shop-lift in “Link’s Awakening” the store owner will give you the death penalty, and have your save file name will be replaced with “THIEF!”.
So there have been consequences actually.
@Beau Skunky
Yeah, but she wouldn’t have given him all the gems.
Zelda isn’t an RPG, there’s no consequences for being immoral.
It’s better to take all the gems than to take some gems, so you wouldn’t even get a choice; Link would just automatically make the right choice, to avoid it being a ‘trap’ for inattentive players, which is to take the gems by force.
@Beau Skunky
Yes, but I suppose I was referring to the game Four Swords Adventures, where any player of any Link can be the bastard of the team. Either way, Red has a one in four chance of being controlled by a bastard. ;3
I guess I’m just more used to older JRPGs, where that wasn’t a big deal. (As newer ones don’t interest me much.) “Chrono Trigger” (a fav’ of mine.) had something similar to what you describe, but it only effects an early event in the game sort’ve.
Plus, as you said Zelda’s not an RPG, It’s an “Adventure” game.
In specific cases, yeah.
But other than the THIEF case, it’s usually felt like less of a moral choice, and more just a way to trip up players that are used to how the games work.
The THIEF example does have people either going ‘eh, I’ll pay, I don’t want to be a jerk’ or ‘I’m in a hurry, possibly because I’m speedrunning. Screw it, I’m fine with getting marked a THIEF if I save ten seconds of ruby-grinding’ so that does have a bit of a choice.
But with a fine or something? I figure most people, at best, go ‘Oh. Hah, didn’t expect that. Nice meta-commentary’ and continue breaking other people’s pots without a second thought.
What I meant was that there are games out there where there’d be long-term consequences; Either an arbitrary ‘good/evil’ stat, or people start noticing you break pots so something changes later on (maybe you get arrested), heck maybe it just means people get poorer and so in the late-game that area of the world has worse stock in the shops and is generally portrayed as less prosperous than it would normally be.
In an RPG, where you’re supposed to feel like your choices matter (even if it’s often an illusion, coughDragon Agecough) you would be more likely to have to consider breaking them or not.
Actually, I recall in “Windwaker” that one rich guy would call you out on it, and charge you if you break his fancy expressive vaces. Also, if you shop-lift in “Link’s Awakening” the store owner will give you the death penalty, and have your save file name will be replaced with “THIEF!”.
So there have been consequences actually.
Yeah, but she wouldn’t have given him all the gems.
Zelda isn’t an RPG, there’s no consequences for being immoral.
It’s better to take all the gems than to take some gems, so you wouldn’t even get a choice; Link would just automatically make the right choice, to avoid it being a ‘trap’ for inattentive players, which is to take the gems by force.
Being the Element of Generosity, she likely would’ve shared if he asked nicely, rather then break her stuff, and steal them.
That could be said for any multi-player action game like New SMB, or Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers. (Pleeeeaaaase remake that, Wayforward!)
People are saying “Triforce Heroes” isn’t as good as the “Four Swords” games. A bit surprising, sense it’s one of the few recent online 3DS games.
Yes, but I suppose I was referring to the game Four Swords Adventures, where any player of any Link can be the bastard of the team. Either way, Red has a one in four chance of being controlled by a bastard. ;3
@thps48
Wasn’t he the nice one in the Manga?