File:Darby McDevitt on Animus objectives and synchronization.png

Darby McDevitt on Animus optional objectives and impacts on synchronization

Lucas de Sousa Duarte (@miinyri) on Twitter "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? +"
Darby McDevitt (@DarbyMcDevitt) on Twitter "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.)"
Darby McDevitt (@DarbyMcDevitt) on Twitter "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.)"
Darby McDevitt (@DarbyMcDevitt) on Twitter "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.)"
Darby McDevitt (@DarbyMcDevitt) on Twitter "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."

Twitter