EVERYTHING YOU HAVE EVER BELIEVED IS WRONG!!!!!

Ahem. Actually, what I meant to say was, there's a really interesting book by Johan Huizinga called "Homo Ludens" which if you haven't already read you might enjoy. Um. Yeah, one of the things he says is, games can be divided into two types according to the quality of tension in them. Jigsaw puzzles have some tension associated with the fact that the particular piece you're holding in your hand might be difficult to find a spot for, but on the other hand, overall there's the reassuring knowledge that if you keep playing the game then inevitably you will ultimately win. Then there's games like chess, which have an entirely different order of tension, because it's possible - indeed, often it's likely - that you'll lose.

Anyway, when you say that a real choice needs to have consequences, none of which suck... I don't know, it reminded me of that thing. It kind of strikes me as an odd thing, because... while I know what you mean, I also sort of think... the most exciting games have consequences which do suck, and which you can't do anything about except trying to find ways of coping with them. I think the thing in most CRPGs which kills that for me is the whole save-reload cycle (and the built-in assumption on the part of the designers that that's how the game will be played).

Speaking of which, have you ever played Nethack?

Hmmm...I think, she says speaking for someone else, Dan doesn't mean "choices that don't suck" in the sense that your decisions may lead to unfortunate consequences (death of a character or whatever) but outcomes that seem to indicate the designers wanted you to take the other route. I mean, if I do something in game and it leads to the destruction of, say, my home village and then I get to walk angstily around the charred remains, discovering the smouldering teddybear my young in-game sibling was very attached to them I'm happy (well not exactly happy 'cos I've destroyed a village) but I'm happy because the choice to destroy the village was clearly supported by the engine. But the probolem with the influence mechanic is that, either you say what the NPC wants to hear in which case you get extra dialogue options, more choices in game etc. etc. or you don't and you get fuck all.

Ah, gotcha. I haven't actually played NWN2 (or any other games for six whole weeks - can you believe it?) but I see more clearly now what the problem with the influence mechanic is. I guess I'd put it back to the horrible save-reload assumption. The designers assume that before every dialogue, you'll save the game, play it through and if you make an unsupported choice, you'll reload and make the other choice. Which, of course, is not really much of a "choice", or much of a design. Hmm.

Yes, but I think in terms of how we think a game actually should work we're on the same page

...same page, dammit, my comment got cut in half! What I wrote next was, something something, you should be able to see the character who was going to inherit the throne in Act 3 die in Act 2 and then figure out who is going to inherit it now, but you shouldn't be able to wander round the edge of the backdrop and see that it's not a castle, just a bit of painted fabric, that someone's only bothered to paint half of. I wrote it more coherently the first time. :P

Hmmm...that's an interesting point actually and one I hadn't quite encompassed - I mean the idea that games are basically being designed on the assumption you're going to be making extensive use of the save and reload.