The choice-and-consequence criticism, I think, really comes from a clash between what the player expects and what the game in question is actually trying to do. If someone's coming to one of these 'choices matter even if they don't pan out' things from a capital-G Gaming background, they're going to come to it with the understanding they'd bring to, say, an RPG of similar budget and design, and, properly, by the way, identify the lack of consequences for various actions as a disappointing oversight or lack of agency. Someone coming to them from Visual Novels or just out of a hunger for the property or a story they've heard was good, will not even notice the lack of agency, and, properly, by the way, identify the narrative being told well. I think where it causes problems is when games that prioritize narrative coherence over agency are marketed, sold, or critiqued as equivalents to games that do the inverse. I've definitely been rubbed the wrong way when a game basically gives me a personality test and then ignores the result anyway. And I get the philosophical notion that the act of choosing affects the story and your reception of it even if nothing happens as a direct result, but I can't help but imagine at least a little more effort going into making them feel valuable every time I run into it.
Agreed in full. The inverse is always more interesting, right? A game that is advertised as a narrative adventure but that has dialogue options and some divergences later is a welcome surprise, compared to a choices matter with only two end-states that basically look the same.
I view expectation as the main driving force for whether choices like this are successful, so also I am most critical of advertising that leads people the wrong way. Let people come to the game on its own terms. If those terms are based in consequence, then critics like you should absolutely point out the discrepancy and disappointment
The choice-and-consequence criticism, I think, really comes from a clash between what the player expects and what the game in question is actually trying to do. If someone's coming to one of these 'choices matter even if they don't pan out' things from a capital-G Gaming background, they're going to come to it with the understanding they'd bring to, say, an RPG of similar budget and design, and, properly, by the way, identify the lack of consequences for various actions as a disappointing oversight or lack of agency. Someone coming to them from Visual Novels or just out of a hunger for the property or a story they've heard was good, will not even notice the lack of agency, and, properly, by the way, identify the narrative being told well. I think where it causes problems is when games that prioritize narrative coherence over agency are marketed, sold, or critiqued as equivalents to games that do the inverse. I've definitely been rubbed the wrong way when a game basically gives me a personality test and then ignores the result anyway. And I get the philosophical notion that the act of choosing affects the story and your reception of it even if nothing happens as a direct result, but I can't help but imagine at least a little more effort going into making them feel valuable every time I run into it.
Agreed in full. The inverse is always more interesting, right? A game that is advertised as a narrative adventure but that has dialogue options and some divergences later is a welcome surprise, compared to a choices matter with only two end-states that basically look the same.
I view expectation as the main driving force for whether choices like this are successful, so also I am most critical of advertising that leads people the wrong way. Let people come to the game on its own terms. If those terms are based in consequence, then critics like you should absolutely point out the discrepancy and disappointment