[Psychologist and gamer Jamie Madigan looks at the psychological underpinnings of one of BioWare’s trademark RPG elements, defining 'psychological reactance' and pointing out how it's used in titles like Mass Effect.]
Earlier this year I was playing through BioWare’s Dragon Age: Origins and found myself on the twin points of one of the company’s signature dilemmas: with which of the non-player characters should I pursue a romantic interest? Should I woo the crabby but sexy Morrigan or should I court the more pure hearted and worldly Lelliana?
Or hey, maybe I should put the “role play” in “role playing game” and succumb to the roguish (literally) Zevran’s advances? Oh, I can’t commit! BioWare has been presenting me with this same basic choice since Baldur’s Gate (Viconia, before you ask) and I always end up doing the same thing: I string everyone along as far as I can until I’m absolutely forced to make a choice.
So why is this? Why do I invest so much mental and emotional energy into this pointless choice between make-believe people in a video game and why am I so reluctant to commit?
Well, part of the reason is that humans hate to lose choices. Or, more to the point, we hate to lose options. Psychologist Jack Brehm coined the term "psychological reactance" to explain the concept that we really hate to lose options or freedoms once we think we have them. A child will want the toy they showed no interest in moments earlier just because her sibling is playing with it now.
When shoppers in Florida were told that a certain kind of laundry detergent was banned, they rushed to not only horde the soapy goods, but they began organizing caravans to import them from neighboring states.
And some members of one message board community I regularly visit reacted to having a particular nasty curse word automatically replaced by the word "tapir." They found progressively more insidious ways of circumventing the ban and by adopting “tapir” as a well known code word for the very thing it was supposed to replace, resulting in more name calling than before.
Psychological Reactance In Practice
Behavioral economist Dan Ariely provided a neat example of psychological reactance in his book, Predictably Irrational, and I think it’s directly relevant to my inability to let go of romance options in Dragon Age. Ariely and his colleague created a little computer game where participants could choose between three doors --red, blue, and green. Players had only 100 mouse clicks to “spend” in the game by clicking to navigate between doors and then clicking in the rooms on the other side of each door.
Clicking once inside a room yielded a random amount of money within a certain range. The red room, for example, could pay between 3 and 9 cents for each one of the player’s limited clicks, but the blue room may pay between 8 and 16 cents per click. Only the players didn’t know the ranges; they had to experiment to determine the optimal way to play the game and maximize their payout.
But here’s the trick: If a player ignored a certain room for 12 turns (i.e., clicks), the door to that room would shrink and eventually disappear --gone was that option! But players could "reset" the door by clicking on it just once before it disappeared (an act that cost 2 clicks without generating any money).
So what did people tend to do? Even after discovering which room yielded the highest payout --in real money-- they STILL tended to go back and waste clicks on lower paying doors just to keep those options open even thought they didn’t intend to actually exercise them. This was totally irrational, but psychological reactance made them reluctant to lose those options.
Choices, Choices
I think the same thing is at play when we wring our hands over closing the door to one of BioWare’s trademark NPC romances, especially after the point where we have nothing to gain by stringing the other players along. I’m not sure that the wizards (and doctors --Canadian ones at that!) at BioWare call it “psychological reactance” in their design documents, but I bet they’ve figured out that this approach adds a lot of drama and tension to the game, which we react to well in the end.
This kind of thing is so common in character progression as to be mundane (do I spend my talent points upgrading weapons or stealth abilities?) but game designers can certainly aim to do the same thing by giving us irrevocable choices in narrative choices. Making choices that kill the player have little tension, because you can always load a saved game. But forcing a player to make a choice that will result in losing a party member will cause real consternation.
Remember the fates of Ashley Williams and Kaiden Alenko in another BioWare joint by the name of Mass Effect? The tension could be highlighted even more when we have to allocate (some might say “waste”) limited resources to keeping options open as long as possible. Or force a player to choose between upgrading his armor rating or getting a chance to complete an entire side quest. By leveraging psychological reactance, designers can inject a lot of hand wringing into the experience that will be remembered for a long time.
References:
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. New York, NY: HarperCollins
Brehm, J. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Pearson Press.
[Jamie Madigan, Ph.D. is a psychologist and gamer who explores why players and developers do what they do by studying the overlap between psychology and video games at The Psychology of Games website. He can be reached at jamie@psychologyofgames.com.]
The downloadable content Dragon Age: Awakening also features a choice the player needs to make early in the game regarding where to allocate soldiers for protecting assets. I haven't gotten much further than that, but it seems so glaringly obvious that this choice will have consequences later that I found myself dithering for several minutes over it -- I hate foreclosing on options! (It's a good thing this isn't a real-time game....)
There's some support over in the Myers-Briggs world for the existence of a preference some people feel for keeping their options open. In the MB terminology, some people prefer "Judging" while others prefer "Perceiving." Someone with a strong Judging preference will actually be uncomfortable with open-ended situations, and will usually choose to make decisions quickly, perhaps feeling that if the consequences are negative they can act equally quickly to avert or mitigate the worst of those consequences. The important thing is to minimize losses by locking down unknowns.
Others, however (and I'm one of them), are reluctant to set anything in stone before it's absolutely required to make a choice. They're more comfortable continuing to collect information (satisfying the Perceiving preference) for as long as possible before making a decision. This maximizes the chances of being able to capitalize on future opportunities.
I wonder if this might affect the kinds of people willing to buy and play real-time games such as RTSs or multiplayer shooters, which require constant decision-making on limited information, versus turn-based games such as 4X strategy games and old-school RPGs with a "pause for orders" mechanic.
By including option-foreclosing choices in a game that otherwise lets players think about choices before having to make them, is that something that most players of a game like Dragon Age find to be a pleasing break from the generally Perceiving-oriented design? Or does the occasional requirement for immediate Judging-oriented action feel more like a jarring mismatch with how the rest of the game moves?
Maybe the reluctance was due to the fact that none of the choices (especially the guy) were particularly appealing.
Are you perhaps overthinking things? Then again, once you have a Ph.D in psychology, I suppose there must be an awfully big temptation to make use of the damn thing.
Even if you like your choices, or any one choice, I still think it's hard to completely ignore the other avenues. In Mass Effect 2, I had zero interest in Jack or Talia, but I still took those "romances" as far as I could until the dreaded "Make a choice!" portion.
In my view, though, it was really more about exploring content. I know that content is out there, and I wanted to see it.
My girlfriend actually had a similar response with Dragon Age, where she really liked Leliana and just wanted to know more about her... then unwittingly triggered a romance choice. When she said no, Leliana was so upset by it... so she reloaded a save, and restricted herself never to talk to Leliana in camp again, despite liking the character so much.
People love content, that's why there's games like Fallout and Oblivion out there.
Is this why some couples cheat with each other? n___n ...lack of options...?
Now, serious is a very interesting article.
I think that giving choices on game is not always a good idea. This, could make you lose the focus on the game flow because its makes you feel anxious, sometime even awake some obsession.
In the other hand, is true that is a useful tool if you use it carefully on level design.
I still think Baldur's Gate II is the best example at Bioware using the romantic plot weaving with the main storyline. Romances often led to additional sidequests, and as the game's main story progressed, the ones you romanced would share their thoughts, especially after key points in the plot that left the player character a little empty on the inside.
But in the end, Viconia is always the right choice.
Perhaps this could be extended into a discussion of games like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, where the player has to make permanent decisions on how to level their character; by the end of the game, they have navigated all these choices to arrive at a character who is more or less unique to them and whose skills they have invested in.
Compare that to BioShock, where there is a similar upgrade system but you can change your choices at any point in the game and there is enough Adam to pretty much guarantee you'll have all your skills maxed out by the final boss fight. There are character choices for the player, but they're of no consequence because all players will end up with almost exactly the same character.
For me, the main reason to have kept these romances opened (in ME2, and it also happen in alpha protocol) as far as possible, and have save games for the turning points was to get to see as much of the game as possible...Replayability is not something i'm really interested on, I want to gt the most of the game withouth having to play it 5 times...these games are too long to do that, specially having in count that I have other games queueing and not only games, but movies, series, books, comics, and real life requirements!!!!!!
For me, the main reason to have kept these romances opened (in ME2, and it also happen in alpha protocol) as far as possible, and have save games for the turning points was to get to see as much of the game as possible...Replayability is not something i'm really interested on, I want to gt the most of the game withouth having to play it 5 times...these games are too long to do that, specially having in count that I have other games queueing and not only games, but movies, series, books, comics, and real life requirements!!!!!!
Uhm i'm not sure i got this completely, but a person tries to keep options open because having it there is kind of like owning it, holding on to it... no? Not only, in the case of money/doors, simple gain is not a purpose interesting enough to pursue, there's something more strategical to it... being in control of the "system" then is a higher scope than mere boring profit which subconsciously appears as a "bait" the player doesn't want to bite, he's rebellious to the rules the "game" provided.
So yes in the end it's just about knowing everything, seeing everything, waiting until the last second, before making an absolute choice, and the fact that people prefer controlling the system other than being victims of it.
Maybe a particularly greedy, ruthless and selfish person would just pick the most profitable door, despising the others.
I THINK it could be an interesting phenomenon for videogames, but it's not written by the point of view of a real videogamer!
many writers, psychologists, intellectuals who talk about videogames USING their own expertise tend to forget we are talking about a media that is interesting(like all other media, novels, theatre) because it creates UNIQUE tools, while these persons talk about external phenomena that have nothing to do with interaction, and when they "try" to explain it, they don't consider the factor of interaction and strategy(and it's no wonder that instead the folks who answered got this AT ONCE), they're evidently not prepared to talk about videogames, they hang on too much to the old techniques they learn in their academies :)
It's like an old man who writes about online relationships and conversations using a book written in the 1950! This Jamie Madigal person explains this with old kid/toy cliché and he also says that holding on to the other door is irrational but he doesn't consider the good old feeling of strategy and exploration we so well know(and all of you duly mentioned), things which belong only to videogames and have created entirely new psychological effects.
Because choices in videogames become interesting when:
1. the game gives feeble hints at the existance of a hidden choice you have to "make up"
2. the game gives feeble hints at the consequences choices hold, so the player has to reflec t upon the possibilities... for example the death of a character right in the ending sequence of the game... not, as the ingenuous psychologist here said, the case of a "mismanaged action shootout" death.
the problem with mass effect's choices is that they don't give hints... they SPOIL the beauty of thinking, they deprive us of the right to overcome problems(which is prolly the heart of videogaming) to underline the cinematic timings and cameras, dramatic cutscenes that kill interaction, suspence, even acting for god sake. Bioware made Mr. Pac-man turn on his own grave! The situation Kaidan/Ashley wasn't interesting in any way because you couldn't find a third HARD, difficult, HIDDEN solution to save both, AND it had no consequences other than one of the clones suddenly not being drawn anymore by designers... big deal. The problem with Bioware's lead designers is that they have been tempted by cinema, and forever betrayed the significance of videogame and interaction
all these more interactive aspects of C&C i dealt with in my last blog, and i'd love to discuss them further.
Interesting article. I had the same hesitation with the romances in Dragon Age - finding myself over-thinking the situation. I even questioned myself at the time as to why this was because it was really distracting; I didn't even really care for any of the characters in question and ultimately this thought process took me out of the game experience. I think that for me it was about trying to experience all the content, because similarly to a previous poster, I don't have the time or desire usually to replay such lengthy games, and yet I want to experience it all, and of course finish the game most "successfully" as possible.
I found I similarly struggled with developing the supporting characters levels, skills, gear, etc.. Should I spend my time focusing on the minimum number of characters needed and max them out to just get through and finish the game or develop all the characters to their max (obviously the preferred choice when wanting to maximize content experience)? But with the hard reality of limited time I end up making compromises and feel that my characters and the experiences I have in game are good, but not the best that could be. At this point, I usually sit back and try to figure out what really matters to me.
That's one of the cool and unique things about video games. Stories in novels, most often are linear, as are movies and comics, and most other media and I am willingly "moved" along in the story to experience what the authors want me to and I find mystery, intrigue, romances, etc. in a simple "what will happen next fashion?". This can get quite predictable and leads to the constant search for "something new" to thrill, intrigue, shock and ultimately entertain me. When it comes to games like the ones mentioned it is more complex then that and that can be both strengthening and exciting (as in "I've always wanted to have a love affair with a witch") or confusing and exciting (now that I just killed that dude who will I have to answer to??), and aspects of a real multi-directional story start to come about. But it still feels only half-fulfilled, even in sandbox games.
What if every encounter with an NPC lead to choices being made with resultant varying consequences? Always! like in real life. Video games taken to their fullest have that possibility. This might even be the reason for such appeal with large multiplayer games. I enjoy pvp because my interactions with others are never the same, and as reputations form later experiences in the game might be far different than earlier ones.
How much hand wringing do we actual want though? Life itself is pretty much solely about making one choice after another and dealing with the consequences and there is something to be said for linear entertainment that frees us from having to make choices.
From a role playing game point of view, I thought the whole thing was an annoying distraction. "Ladies, I'm trying to prevent an undead necromantic apocalypse, here. Get back to me, both you, once the apocalypse is averted, will ya? Right now, I'm busy."
Talk about a willing suspension of disbelief buster!
This does bring up some interesting issues. Several have commented on their hesitation being based on a desire to experience as much of the content as the game has. I share this impulse. But I think it will diminish as game worlds get bigger and bigger as programmatic solutions to mass content emerge. Eventually we gamers will have to be content to have experienced a particular PART of the game world. Kind of like we have to be content to only experience part of the real world. At that point a think a whole different set of motivations will be in play.
Another issue related to this is the issue of uninformed choices. There is nothing I hate more in games than being presented with two stark options with no indications as to what their future implications will be. It's fine to choose between distributing Sword points and Bow points, because their implications are explicit. But having to choose between lovers is full of ambiguity. Which is realistic. But since we all recognize that we are in a game, we know that the ramifications will ultimately boil down to game mechanics. (In cases where where the choice in not merely aesthetic.)
I have this problem of trying to explore every bit, not only of dialog, but of the game in a whole as well. And I find this a problem. It really takes me hours to go on through the game just because I'm "stuck" by choosing between all possibilities of dialog, or because I want to make sure my move will be "the best" (or, at least, which suites me the best). One part of me blame myself, for being like this, but the problem is when it comes from the developers for giving huge consequences to my acts with not giving me enough information about it! The "uninformed choices" as Foreman said.
For sure all this gamma of possibilities makes a richer and deeper experience, but the problem comes when you see there are huge "wrong" choices. And you normally see that they were wrong through their consequences. As Foreman told, we have this big issue of uninformed choices. This is HUGE since makes you affraid of making decisions, killing the whole fun! It stucks you, makes you not free to choose. This "fear of making mistakes" is what some speciallists point as the killer of creativity as we are set in school, pointing that by 'punishing' us so much in our mistakes, we avoid trying new things, which is the basis of creativity.
I felt that in lot of games. In a simple example, I'll use what Foreman said: "It's fine to choose between distributing Sword points and Bow points, because their implications are explicit.". But that's just where I think some games failed and created some sort of "trauma" on me, and that comes from, exactly, Baldur's Gate. I got to a point where, by creating a fighter, not taking Long Sword would be a dumb act. The game didn't provide me with enough good weapons as long swords, and even when I got good axes, it'd be long far from the point I could've got an equivalent (or better) sword. The only reason I saw for choosing other kinds of weapon, was the "coolness" factor, or, 'to create a more richer and deeper character'. But that came with consequences, making me regret and wanting to create another character, now, not making the same mistakes, as I considered them myself. This can be made clear with the "Oh gee, I got this ultra all-mighty Drizzt's Scimitar but have 4 points in Axes!" It's not a necessity to use his sword and of course you can beat the game without them, but hey! I just killed Drizzt! I want my reward! This Great axe + 2 I just found in a cabinet! Totally not cool as the sword! Solution? Create another char... or cheat to change your skill points.
Anyway, my point is that, even though my favorite games are the ones with huge possibilities to choose, I think there should be a way to balance between Perceivers and Judgers (using the therms Barn pointed out). In Deus Ex, almost all through the game, you could have a way of completing things... If you don't have heavy weapons, the game provides you a way of overcome bots. You dont like fighting? Talk with the scientist and he gives you a password to use a water channel and pass the guards. Don't find this scientist? Hack the pannel and open the water channel by yourself! But even though, I also "string" lots of things, like my weapon mods and aug cannisters! And when my inventory got to a critical point, I couldn't resist: I checked a faq to guide me through these decisons.
Trying to explore every bit of the game is sure a problem. This aways kept me away from RTSs since I can't just rush... All those technologies and upgrades...... I can't just send a troop of the worst unit! Not until they are all upgraded! By that time, I also have much stronger units, also upgraded to maximum, not needing the weaker one....... and also, by that time, I long had lost the game for a rusher that didn't let me explore this whole beautiful and promising world, full of adventure and rewards :(!! Ooops. Definitely, I was in the wrong game!
There's some support over in the Myers-Briggs world for the existence of a preference some people feel for keeping their options open. In the MB terminology, some people prefer "Judging" while others prefer "Perceiving." Someone with a strong Judging preference will actually be uncomfortable with open-ended situations, and will usually choose to make decisions quickly, perhaps feeling that if the consequences are negative they can act equally quickly to avert or mitigate the worst of those consequences. The important thing is to minimize losses by locking down unknowns.
Others, however (and I'm one of them), are reluctant to set anything in stone before it's absolutely required to make a choice. They're more comfortable continuing to collect information (satisfying the Perceiving preference) for as long as possible before making a decision. This maximizes the chances of being able to capitalize on future opportunities.
I wonder if this might affect the kinds of people willing to buy and play real-time games such as RTSs or multiplayer shooters, which require constant decision-making on limited information, versus turn-based games such as 4X strategy games and old-school RPGs with a "pause for orders" mechanic.
By including option-foreclosing choices in a game that otherwise lets players think about choices before having to make them, is that something that most players of a game like Dragon Age find to be a pleasing break from the generally Perceiving-oriented design? Or does the occasional requirement for immediate Judging-oriented action feel more like a jarring mismatch with how the rest of the game moves?
Are you perhaps overthinking things? Then again, once you have a Ph.D in psychology, I suppose there must be an awfully big temptation to make use of the damn thing.
Even if you like your choices, or any one choice, I still think it's hard to completely ignore the other avenues. In Mass Effect 2, I had zero interest in Jack or Talia, but I still took those "romances" as far as I could until the dreaded "Make a choice!" portion.
In my view, though, it was really more about exploring content. I know that content is out there, and I wanted to see it.
My girlfriend actually had a similar response with Dragon Age, where she really liked Leliana and just wanted to know more about her... then unwittingly triggered a romance choice. When she said no, Leliana was so upset by it... so she reloaded a save, and restricted herself never to talk to Leliana in camp again, despite liking the character so much.
People love content, that's why there's games like Fallout and Oblivion out there.
Now, serious is a very interesting article.
I think that giving choices on game is not always a good idea. This, could make you lose the focus on the game flow because its makes you feel anxious, sometime even awake some obsession.
In the other hand, is true that is a useful tool if you use it carefully on level design.
But in the end, Viconia is always the right choice.
Compare that to BioShock, where there is a similar upgrade system but you can change your choices at any point in the game and there is enough Adam to pretty much guarantee you'll have all your skills maxed out by the final boss fight. There are character choices for the player, but they're of no consequence because all players will end up with almost exactly the same character.
:)
:)
So yes in the end it's just about knowing everything, seeing everything, waiting until the last second, before making an absolute choice, and the fact that people prefer controlling the system other than being victims of it.
Maybe a particularly greedy, ruthless and selfish person would just pick the most profitable door, despising the others.
I THINK it could be an interesting phenomenon for videogames, but it's not written by the point of view of a real videogamer!
many writers, psychologists, intellectuals who talk about videogames USING their own expertise tend to forget we are talking about a media that is interesting(like all other media, novels, theatre) because it creates UNIQUE tools, while these persons talk about external phenomena that have nothing to do with interaction, and when they "try" to explain it, they don't consider the factor of interaction and strategy(and it's no wonder that instead the folks who answered got this AT ONCE), they're evidently not prepared to talk about videogames, they hang on too much to the old techniques they learn in their academies :)
It's like an old man who writes about online relationships and conversations using a book written in the 1950! This Jamie Madigal person explains this with old kid/toy cliché and he also says that holding on to the other door is irrational but he doesn't consider the good old feeling of strategy and exploration we so well know(and all of you duly mentioned), things which belong only to videogames and have created entirely new psychological effects.
Because choices in videogames become interesting when:
1. the game gives feeble hints at the existance of a hidden choice you have to "make up"
2. the game gives feeble hints at the consequences choices hold, so the player has to reflec t upon the possibilities... for example the death of a character right in the ending sequence of the game... not, as the ingenuous psychologist here said, the case of a "mismanaged action shootout" death.
the problem with mass effect's choices is that they don't give hints... they SPOIL the beauty of thinking, they deprive us of the right to overcome problems(which is prolly the heart of videogaming) to underline the cinematic timings and cameras, dramatic cutscenes that kill interaction, suspence, even acting for god sake. Bioware made Mr. Pac-man turn on his own grave! The situation Kaidan/Ashley wasn't interesting in any way because you couldn't find a third HARD, difficult, HIDDEN solution to save both, AND it had no consequences other than one of the clones suddenly not being drawn anymore by designers... big deal. The problem with Bioware's lead designers is that they have been tempted by cinema, and forever betrayed the significance of videogame and interaction
all these more interactive aspects of C&C i dealt with in my last blog, and i'd love to discuss them further.
I found I similarly struggled with developing the supporting characters levels, skills, gear, etc.. Should I spend my time focusing on the minimum number of characters needed and max them out to just get through and finish the game or develop all the characters to their max (obviously the preferred choice when wanting to maximize content experience)? But with the hard reality of limited time I end up making compromises and feel that my characters and the experiences I have in game are good, but not the best that could be. At this point, I usually sit back and try to figure out what really matters to me.
That's one of the cool and unique things about video games. Stories in novels, most often are linear, as are movies and comics, and most other media and I am willingly "moved" along in the story to experience what the authors want me to and I find mystery, intrigue, romances, etc. in a simple "what will happen next fashion?". This can get quite predictable and leads to the constant search for "something new" to thrill, intrigue, shock and ultimately entertain me. When it comes to games like the ones mentioned it is more complex then that and that can be both strengthening and exciting (as in "I've always wanted to have a love affair with a witch") or confusing and exciting (now that I just killed that dude who will I have to answer to??), and aspects of a real multi-directional story start to come about. But it still feels only half-fulfilled, even in sandbox games.
What if every encounter with an NPC lead to choices being made with resultant varying consequences? Always! like in real life. Video games taken to their fullest have that possibility. This might even be the reason for such appeal with large multiplayer games. I enjoy pvp because my interactions with others are never the same, and as reputations form later experiences in the game might be far different than earlier ones.
How much hand wringing do we actual want though? Life itself is pretty much solely about making one choice after another and dealing with the consequences and there is something to be said for linear entertainment that frees us from having to make choices.
Talk about a willing suspension of disbelief buster!
Another issue related to this is the issue of uninformed choices. There is nothing I hate more in games than being presented with two stark options with no indications as to what their future implications will be. It's fine to choose between distributing Sword points and Bow points, because their implications are explicit. But having to choose between lovers is full of ambiguity. Which is realistic. But since we all recognize that we are in a game, we know that the ramifications will ultimately boil down to game mechanics. (In cases where where the choice in not merely aesthetic.)
For sure all this gamma of possibilities makes a richer and deeper experience, but the problem comes when you see there are huge "wrong" choices. And you normally see that they were wrong through their consequences. As Foreman told, we have this big issue of uninformed choices. This is HUGE since makes you affraid of making decisions, killing the whole fun! It stucks you, makes you not free to choose. This "fear of making mistakes" is what some speciallists point as the killer of creativity as we are set in school, pointing that by 'punishing' us so much in our mistakes, we avoid trying new things, which is the basis of creativity.
I felt that in lot of games. In a simple example, I'll use what Foreman said: "It's fine to choose between distributing Sword points and Bow points, because their implications are explicit.". But that's just where I think some games failed and created some sort of "trauma" on me, and that comes from, exactly, Baldur's Gate. I got to a point where, by creating a fighter, not taking Long Sword would be a dumb act. The game didn't provide me with enough good weapons as long swords, and even when I got good axes, it'd be long far from the point I could've got an equivalent (or better) sword. The only reason I saw for choosing other kinds of weapon, was the "coolness" factor, or, 'to create a more richer and deeper character'. But that came with consequences, making me regret and wanting to create another character, now, not making the same mistakes, as I considered them myself. This can be made clear with the "Oh gee, I got this ultra all-mighty Drizzt's Scimitar but have 4 points in Axes!" It's not a necessity to use his sword and of course you can beat the game without them, but hey! I just killed Drizzt! I want my reward! This Great axe + 2 I just found in a cabinet! Totally not cool as the sword! Solution? Create another char... or cheat to change your skill points.
Anyway, my point is that, even though my favorite games are the ones with huge possibilities to choose, I think there should be a way to balance between Perceivers and Judgers (using the therms Barn pointed out). In Deus Ex, almost all through the game, you could have a way of completing things... If you don't have heavy weapons, the game provides you a way of overcome bots. You dont like fighting? Talk with the scientist and he gives you a password to use a water channel and pass the guards. Don't find this scientist? Hack the pannel and open the water channel by yourself! But even though, I also "string" lots of things, like my weapon mods and aug cannisters! And when my inventory got to a critical point, I couldn't resist: I checked a faq to guide me through these decisons.
Trying to explore every bit of the game is sure a problem. This aways kept me away from RTSs since I can't just rush... All those technologies and upgrades...... I can't just send a troop of the worst unit! Not until they are all upgraded! By that time, I also have much stronger units, also upgraded to maximum, not needing the weaker one....... and also, by that time, I long had lost the game for a rusher that didn't let me explore this whole beautiful and promising world, full of adventure and rewards :(!! Ooops. Definitely, I was in the wrong game!