RolStoppable said:
MTZehvor said:
I'd argue that if the bolded was intended to be the point, it should have been elaborated on earlier in the game. Honestly, that would've made for a really interesting moral dilemma had it been given to the player ahead of time, a question of whether it's preferable to compromise morals for the sake of saving lives. Problem is the game doesn't even remotely suggest that to the player ahead of time, so it cannot possibly be the decision you make. Nothing is stated about the amount of bloodshed that would be required if you join Hoshido, or that you could save more lives if you joined Nohr. The very fact that the player doesn't realize it until "the next few chapters" shows pretty definitively that that is not the choice you are making at the time, even if the amount of bloodshed winds up being the biggest ramification later on.
|
And I would agree with your assessment, hence why the rest of my post (which you chose to remove from the quote) said that it wasn't about a moral choice to begin with. The player makes a gameplay choice above anything else. Highlighting the options when choosing a path makes that obvious, because what you are told that will happen is how your choice will affect the gameplay. The only story-related information you get is on the third path, with the game telling you that it is recommended to play through the other two paths first.
|
I removed it because I already addressed that part of the post in several other messages. The player does make a choice dependant on exclusively on gameplay reasons, and that is what I find disappointing, because there was room to do something with both story and gameplay.
