Its mentioned in the article, but it bears repeating.
They force give you the first quest of a questline for free, and then charge you seven bucks for the second 15 minute quest.
Its also not complete, its an early access paid mod where they clearly cut content out of the game just to give you the first hit of a faction questline, end that first quest on a cliff hanger, and then charge 7 bucks per quest. And before this, the faction was just a series of kiosks giving radiant quests.
If the player doesnt know the choice exists, and has reason to think the choice doesnt exist, then the choice is kinda moot, isnt it? In any case, my original point was a lot of complaints were really about bad writing.
People did experiment, in the first scene with the wp. That experiment told them that the game would force you to make evil decisions to continue playing. I saw that narratively there was a good option, but the game told me that that option wasnt available in the WP scene.
I didnt know that. After the forced willie pete bit, I thought all the other bits were forced too. Specs op unintentionally set a rule “if theres a choice, youll be forced to take the evil one” which made the entire thing feel obnoxious.
Does anyone really listen to RATM anymore? Tom Morello is a multimillionaire who hordes money instead of giving charity. Hes a hypocrite and a sell-out.
Has anyone actually seen anyone actually complain about having politics in games, and not just obnoxious politics, like Specs Ops where they force you to kill civilians and then act like your the bad guy because you wanted to see the content you paid for? If you dont give us a choice to be good, and if you’re super preachy about it, then its just bad writing.
Look at New Vegas, plenty of politics, but you get to make choices, and its not preachy at all. Then look at the Last of Us 2, where they force you to kill a dog the other character petted, and it comes off as blatant emotional manipulation. Which game is widely considered a masterpeice?