I think I played it wrong to answer that. For me LiS was a 20-something hour long series (HLTB says 12-18 hours is normal) because I wanted to read every journal entry and take every photo as I played. (This is far from unique to LiS, just finished Rise of the Tomb Raider and I didn't get to the post-credit stinger until about hour 31, HLTB says the story is about 13 hours long.)
I looked at a lot of the dialogue trees, seeing what options existed before progressing, with that single play-through. So any replaying I do is more about looking at the ripples of the big choices, seeing what changes. My choices at the time were always "optimal" for the moment they were being made (the the game only has one moment where you don't get to choose what decision happens and Kate lived in my play-through so I "passed" that moment) and I like to think of that as my canonical narrative for the game.
As the dialogue system allowed for more exploration than other games, I actually think LiS is far less conducive to replaying for reasons other than going back to a good TV series and watching it through again to catch anything I might have missed. So I wouldn't aim to change a thing. I do enjoy Let's Plays (like the GBEast streams) so I've seen how things do work out for different permanent choices via that and with critical commentary on top to help broaden my view of the game. So maybe without having done that, I'd be more eager to go back and see the game playing through with different choices.
But I can't say enough good things about the dialogue system that allowed me to explore and play with the range of options in the moment rather than leaving it to a second play-through.
I did a paragon and renegade play-through with Mass Effect, because that series started so well, but I can't say I got that much out of the later games by going through them twice just to see how they could go differently. I have enjoyed playing inFamous games twice for the two paths, although they really don't make that much difference beyond unlocks, so narratively that's pretty weak - but I do come to the inFamous games more for the traversal and skills so am happy they split along those lines. I never completed evil play-throughs of the Fable games despite starting them and then deciding I just didn't care. And those were games with very binary paths to them, so they sort of are two different consistent stories from which you can jump back and forth (but the game systems do generally explicitly punish players who don't try to maximise in one direction or the other - so it's not a platter of options (as some RPGs offer) but two different paths and the game does say you should generally follow one or the other). I don't feel like Life is Strange has two paths that are clearly marked out. So a different play-through would be different but just picking the opposite binary choices to the ones I did wouldn't make me think of it as the "evil" or "other" path as much as just making different choice. A game that has exactly the same binary mechanic as inFamous "A to save hospital; X to burn orphanage" feels so completely different when removing the simple moralistic choices - you're asked to choose between two real (often somewhat shitty) things and that's so refreshing compared to so many stories in games. Really glad the GBEast stream (and all Let's Plays I've seen for that matter) do show that it's pretty universal that the choices you're asked to make are a mix of "well I have to pick this, even though I hate to" and "damn, I can't; these are both terrible" but, crucially, those lines are drawn individually (so they're different for every person - and the stats at the end of each episode back up that split decisions in many cases).
Log in to comment