I'd like to request recommendations (spoiler free!) for games where you need to make choices, take sides, kill or not kill someone, follow or do not follow orders, but where the consequences actually matter - and most importantly, where the choices aren't "obviously good choice vs obviously bad choice".

Give me games where I can choose to side with one kingdom or another, but there's no clear moral high ground, or where I need to decide to save someone dear to me at the cost of innocent lives. I do not want things like "save all the children and get the happy ending and make flowers grow" versus "kill everybody and everything blows up and the world gets all its water replaced by acid".

What games fit this requirement?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] maquise@ttrpg.network 19 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The X-COM series is pretty much these choices all the time, though less in a moral sense and more a strategic risk and reward sense. What do you use your limited time and resources on, how much do you risk when the stakes are high, etc. It’s a little different than the sorts of decisions you’re thinking of, but quite interesting.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I would second Xcom and add: unlike other strategy games, where each character is a nameless unit, Xcom names your units. Not a big deal, but it is a big enough change where you start to create your own stories, even in your head, for the characters. Playing the game in a not easy game mode, causes you to lose soldier from time to time. This really heightens tension when certain characters die, whom you remember, and when some miraculously live. Its a very small, yet somehow meaningful addition to what would otherwise be an endless sea of soldiers.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Are names unusual? The only other tactical game like that that I've played is Final Fantasy Tactics and they all have names.

But I agree. In XCom you just accept that you'll have losses. But they still hurt. My first run-in with Chryssalids was especially brutal. I escaped with two of my men and a failed mission. The rest were one-shotted or eaten by their own.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You bring up a good point, what I was lacking in my post was the combination of names, permanent death, and the very real threat of death. Not certain if Tactics works in a similar way.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

It does work the same. The biggest difference is that there's one or two player characters at any time that will give you a game over if they perma-die. But most of your crew are blank slates (with a name) that you build up, give a specific role, and can perma-die. The roles are more distinct, and there are more roles, so losing them feels like losing a party of your team. Like, your summoner might die, and that was the only summoner you had. You have to put in some effort to replace them.

Now, there is a difference of feel. Random mobs feel like they are for grinding rather than an actual threat. So deaths outside of the story feel like you should just reload your last save to save you the trouble. XCom generally felt like a person died, but it was easier to replace their role with the next man up.

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

And on a similar note, Massive Chalice is a Kingdom under attack from an otherworldly source. Do you choose to defend point A and let point B and C receive corruption points? Do you take your party of developed, well leveled but older than dirt characters into the fight to guarantee success, ensuring they die of old age while your young upstarts grow old and feeble from lack of combat experience?