The Myth of Player Agency in Modern RPGs
DiscussionComments
The claim that every path leads to the same boss fight ignores games with multiple endings based on faction alignment. Some titles allow you to skip final encounters entirely if you resolve the conflict through diplomacy.
skipping the boss isn't agency, it's just a different trigger for the credits.
Hypothetically, if a developer creates five entirely different endings, they are essentially paying to build four versions of the game that a player will never see in a single playthrough. Would players actually prefer that risk over a more polished, linear experience?
A predictable trigger for the credits allows for tighter pacing and better narrative payoffs. It prevents the story from dissolving into a series of incoherent, player-driven accidents.
It is important to distinguish between narrative branching and state-tracking. Many modern titles use world state flags to alter environmental storytelling and NPC dialogue without diverting the primary plot trajectory, which is a resource-efficient way to simulate agency.
If these state-tracking flags are so efficient, why do we still see the same generic town reactions in almost every open world game from the last five years?
I think some games are getting better at this. Seeing NPCs remember a specific small favor you did earlier in the game adds a nice layer of warmth, even if it does not change the main quest.
This is exactly what happens in most big budget titles where you spend an hour picking the diplomatic route only for the NPC to say they do not care and trigger the fight anyway. It feels like a waste of time when the gameplay does not reflect the effort put into the roleplay.