In this way, all the information that the player would have is that the Syndicate are at New Tibet and are chasing someone who claims to have evidence that incriminates the Syndicate, but we don't know what it is.Īs an aside, the Syndicate also doesn't get to defend itself against the claims of the defector. Earlier on, the wording could also be changed so that the officer doesn't say that the Syndicate are attacking New Tibet. Perhaps the defector spoke of proof but didn't show it, and the Syndicate didn't threaten death if the defector wasn't handed over. Looking at those three problems, I think the latter two are far more pressing, so the solution in my eyes would simply be to have the monk tell us less. Regardless of any evidence that the monk tells me the defector has, I think that this itself is also enough to save the defector, as the Syndicate are threatening to attack an FW planet. The Syndicate say that they will destroy the monastery should they not give the defector up. A third problem also stems from what the monk tells us, but is more about the Syndicate's reaction to the defector.Given that we've already been told there's enough evidence to show that the FW are innocent, why not rescue the defector and get that evidence? The FW know they're innocent, so all they need is the proof, and they've just been told that the proof is all on New Tibet. That problem is more minor in my eyes though to the second one: the monk tells us waaayyy too much! We have no reason to distrust the monk, so whatever he tells the player is likely to be taken as true, and what he tells us is that this defector has brought a great deal of evidence, along with listing it off.(JJ doesn't make much a case for the opposite either in my eyes as well, but that's beside the point.) The case is especially weak when you're given the second chance on your choice there's a lot of lives hanging in the balance either way, so saying that isn't much of an argument for ignoring the defector. The first is that I don't think that Freya makes enough of a case for ignoring the defector.I think there are three problems surrounding the choice, though. Wall of text explaining what that means.I think that both choices are completely valid were it a real life situation if the defector was wrong, there's no telling what could have happened to the Free Worlds with both the Navy and the Syndicate fighting them. And I'd also like to pose a question as to if there's anything we should do about this for the FW campaign, or simply leave it how it is? And if we are to do something, what's the solution? There are two somewhat simple solutions I can think of (the non-simple solution being a rewrite of the Checkmate branch).Īlter the circumstances around the choice. I'm posting this as an issue because I think it's a shame that half of the FW ending just goes unplayed so often, and it's something that future major campaigns need to think about with their endings. Of the Checkmate players, only two of the three wrote in a response, and one said they liked nukes better while the other said they think the Checkmate story is better. ![]() When given the chance to write in why they chose this path, 109 of the 112 Reconciliation players responded, and the top responses essentially boiled down to either That's only 3 people who answered that, as opposed to 112 people who answered that they regularly chose the Reconciliation route. Ignoring those who didn't know about the story at the time of the survey (I hope they've done the story now), 2.6% of respondents said that they regularly chose the Checkmate route. One of the questions within the survey was the following. I mentioned in #4034 how made a survey that was posted on the Discord server.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |