It's not that it happens, just that it sucks when it does.

Yeah, it's definitely annoying, although also understandable, as it's really hard to write a fully reactive game that offers and takes account of every choice.

I don't understand why people let such commonplace videogamey things like that totally ruin any sense of immersion. Personally, I think it's pretty easy to look past

The Sims??


jk ;-)

Ugh, I know what you mean ><

Makes me with I could deck the guys who made the game. Now it would be one thing if it is a genuine surprise and during replays I just know about it, but it is another ballpark if it is blatant.

FO:NV doesn't really do this. The only things I found myself wanting to do were things which were prevented by the other factions being completely unwilling to get along, even when it was in their interest to do so.

Which the game did a pretty good job of justifying.
The problem with those sorts of things i that they work out OK, if people are being more passive about it. It irritates me when people guess right and then complain about how obvious it was. Especially in cases where most people didn't see it coming.

Totally agree, if it came as a shock that you had a traitor in your ranks, and it makes sense bravo game designer. But when you spend time trying to figure a way to spring the trap early or not get caught in it because you know it is coming and end up having to walk into it anyway. Or try to keep the bad guy unarmed and under powered and it makes not a bit of difference when they switch sides then that is annoying.

But it would be cool if the game let you deal with a threat you figure out ahead of time. I know that it would be cost prohibitive to make game so flexible now. But you go from controlling your character to following someone elses plot points. On an interactive fiction or a point-and-click adventure I am less anger when this sort of thing happen in particular if the story is good.

edit: to add second reply

Lettuce! Oh wait...

It does indeed suck when that happens, although it didn't with any of the two ones you mention (spcially DX, I was honestly rooting for JC when he switched sides).

Another thing that annoys me are choices by selecting answers with poor wording. As an example, taking the aforementioned VtMB, I was beating it siding with the anarchists and got to the ending scene. And there, I misinterpreted one of the final conversation options and was stuck with a "WTF is my character doing" instead of the awesome ending sequence I saw when I reloaded. But the second time doesn't have as much impact, does it?

There are two types of choices I hate in games. The first is, the good/evil choice that appears over and over in a game, but the one time you take the evil choice you're suddenly irrevocably evil (Bioshock...), and, well, The Mass Effect 3/Deus Ex: HR style 'Pick your ending...nevermind how you acted throughout the game, pick what fits best for you.'

Both of these are kinda pointless. The Bioshock one is annoying because people do have their moments of weakness. It would have been cool to see some extra writing done based on when you made an evil choice for a quick payoff. It's the kind of thing that defines people. Did they do it once early on out of curiosity, or maybe when they were scared of a boss and needed that quick payoff to make sure they had the right plasmids?

With the other, it's a lot harder. It comes down to lazy writing. There's so many choices that it's hard to really make endings that fit the varied different ways that things can end. Or just the fact that they didn't want to actually put your choices into things. Again, Human Revolution, if you were a decent person and completed side quests completely and in a generally nice way, maybe people would use you as a potential beacon for enhancing allowing us to do great things without sacrificing our humanity.

I don't know, I'm just weird.