Editing File:Darby McDevitt on Animus objectives and synchronization.png

== Summary ==
{{Information
|attention=
|description=[[Darby McDevitt]] on [[Animus]] optional objectives and impacts on [[synchronization]]
|source={{Twitter|miinyri|status/1291130267361566720|Lucas de Sousa Duarte|quote=Hey @DarbyMcDevitt, if you could answer, in your own opinion, do you think it was coherent to have the addition of choices inside a genetic memory using the Animus, especially since those memories are part of a big universe that was pre established as linear? +}}<br>{{Twitter|DarbyMcDevitt|status/1291134775831539714|Darby McDevitt|quote=This is a topic I have wanted to address for a while, and I think it must to be split into two pieces to be coherent: Dialog Branching and Multiple Storylines... (cont.)}}<br>{{Twitter|DarbyMcDevitt|status/1291135365437415425|Darby McDevitt|quote=As a feature, I think dialog branching by itself is actually no less viable than any other choice the game offers you as a player. It's a variation on "synchronization" in the same way that ever other player action is. For instance... (cont.)}}<br>{{Twitter|DarbyMcDevitt|status/1291136092570255361|Darby McDevitt|quote=Say you're playing an Ezio game: Player 1 infiltrates a space using stealth and kills only the target. Player 2 walks in the front door and murders 25 guards before assassinating the target. In real life, these two scenarios would have vastly different branching outcomes. (cont.)}}<br>{{Twitter||DarbyMcDevitt|status/1291136700845117447Darby McDevitt|quote=The narrative implications of 1 death versus 26 deaths SHOULD be huge. It would in real life. But in gameplay terms, this choice only has a local effect. It doesn't extend beyond the confines of the mission. We could perhaps say the Animus is always "resynching" the user.}}
|author=Twitter
|filespecs=
|licensing={{Screenshots}}
}}