Sometimes if you continue to say no to the question you have to say yes to, it finally kills you. That I'd let stay - it's just trying to end an infinite loop of being unable to progress in an amusing manner while still impressing upon you that you must say yes to continue. Things like Persona 3, however, where if you say no once it shrugs and kills you shouldn't count.
BTW, I'm a chick.Yeah, one of the Paper Mario games has a scene where if you say no about 20 times finally ends up killing you. Most people would have just said yes by then, but it would be an example of this. It's just a common subversion.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI think this trope should be just about the "asks the question again if you say no" trope. The others can be separate tropes.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.I think it's fine if the answer doesn't make a difference. The point is that, no matter what, "you must". The problem comes when the trope starts expanding to things like Non Standard Game Overs.
It depends, as mentioned above, if the Non-Standard Game Over is deliberately meant to hang a lampshade on the trope (ie by saying no 20 times), it's worth keeping. Otherwise, yes, the examples could use a purge.
I think the core of this trope was summarized well in the first post, "No matter what choice you make, 2 minutes later the game will be continuing the same way no matter what." A Non-Standard Game Over means that yes, there is a change, you're dead now. Examples that are just "Pick one to continue, pick the other and get a game over," should be purged. However, examples such as in Super Paper Mario where you have to say no a large number of times before the game over should still count as a subversion, as it seems that it will just keep going until you say yes but the game gets fed up with you saying no and kills you.
I think the examples where you say no and get a Non-Standard Game Over—the first time, even—should stay. The trope seems to me to be about, essentially, railroading you into one choice. A NSGO is one way to do that.
"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~MadrugadaWhat happens when you get a nonstandard game over? It dumps you back where you were and asks again, in many cases. Thinks like persona 3 where it gives you a whole real ending full of plot don't count, I think, but things where it's just a brief death scene then "Continue?" then the same prompt again more so.
BTW, I'm a chick.I'm the side of 'If giving the "incorrect answer changes the game, it's not But Thou Must!.' A Nonstandrad Game Over is a change in the game. This isn't simply about trying to railroad you, it's about making the railroad tracks completely inescapable — you are stuck in this place until you give the answer you're "supposed" to give. There's no way to go anywhere at all.
Let's not worry about splitting it further until we decide whether to lump it in with Non-Standard Game Over or not.
edited 3rd Aug '10 3:48:10 PM by Madrugada
Only one specific type of Non-Standard Game Over. It shouldn't be the first time you choose it, but repetitive choosing the wrong answer on the exact same question being a NSGO should count as this choice.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI don't see it. Thematically and functionally, they are practically identical.
The question I have is, should we YKTTW a specific trope for times where the player is given multiple choices, and some of them cause a Non-Standard Game Over?
Yeah, I see a difference between "We're going to ask you a question and you can pick any answer you want but the game will continue on exactly the same no matter what you answer" and "We're going to ask you a question and the game isn't going to continue at all until you give the answer we want."
edited 3rd Aug '10 8:10:37 PM by Madrugada
One problem about choices that ultimately don't matter is that some developers can hide it very well. I recall when playing Dragon Age, when talking to your party memebers during the special sequences at camp, the same end result will occur no matter what you say. The dialogue is full and can be rather different depending on what you say, but for any given beginning state, the end state will be the exact same regardless of your choices.
I think this is a very different trope from the repetition of a question to force the player into a single path.
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.I agree that we can do a soft split between a dialogue choice that keeps coming back and one that just continues no matter what.
The problem with Non-Standard Game Over is that yes, you will eventually end up back where you are and have to answer the dialogue option again. But before that, you may have last saved two hours ago and have to go and replay half the game. Very different proposition.
Another iffy thing is dialogue choices that make a very tiny change, maybe a single line or short scene, and then everything continues as is. This one's harder to quantify, because it depends on what you consider a "change". I think we'd need to word the description to talk about the dialogue making a "significant" change, and then each example would have to figure out whether the change is significant or not.
It has to have an effect that lasts beyond the conversation, for example, Tales Of Symphonia has a lot of conversations that seem to follow this, as the group does the same thing regardless of what you say, but your conversation choices affect hidden relationship values, so they do have a lasting effect, so they wouldn't count under here.
Let's consider Ocarina of Time. The Great Deku Tree asks you if you're ready to enter and destroy the infestation. Say no and he remarks that perhaps you need more training. Cue an endless loop where you can't proceed until you say yes. This is Type 1.
Now let's move on to the first conversation with Nabooru. She asks whether you're a follower of Ganondorf or not. Your response only affects the first sentence of her reply. Then she reverts to the standard speech she was going to give anyway. This is Type 2.
edited 4th Aug '10 8:47:57 AM by Nate The Great
The "Do you understand" shouldn't count. The idea is that the character is trying to find a better way to explain the situation, even though the game script simply loops back and repeats the dialogue in question.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Courtesy link.
I'm a little confused, both by the description and the examples. The basic trope seems to be the classic "choice that is not really a choice" - i.e.
The end result in all cases is that two minutes later, no matter what you do, the game continues in the exact same way.
However, the description and examples have expanded to include:
So some major cleanup involved. Anybody else agree that we can chop out the Non-Standard Game Over bit of the description? The rest of it is simply cutting examples that don't fit.