Some people (like you I guess, correct me if not) would now argue that game B is cheating and that there is no reason for two distinct positive or negative answers to exist because they both result in the same story branch or outcome. I can partly understand that opinion although I don't share it. It seems that you don't play the game to "play a role for yourself" but to explore what the game has to offer in systems and possibilities. For me, on the opposite, there is a great difference and I would always prefer game B (if well constructed/written). The reason is quite simple: if I can only choose between two extreme answers but none of these feel correct for what I personally think (or my roleplaying avatar should think...) I "fell out of character" which results in an instant break of immersion. But even before I have a better experience with more options available to choose from. I don't care if the results are the same (why even should I if I don't know the answer?), I care about what COULD happen with taking different answers.
As you said elsewhere, I think, this is indeed an irreconcilable disagreement. I'm primarily a P&P player and I basically enjoy crpgs as a good and less time-consuming alternative to p&p rpgs. I (would) enjoy the most the crpgs that are able to emulate the best a p&p experience -- though there aren't really any crpgs that fits this definition.
In this regard, I never really understood how people can "feel" like they "play a role" or can be "immersed" in a world that doesn't react or answer their actions. If, as a GM, I didn't properly answer my player actions, they would be pissed off... For example, when I see people "roleplaying" in, say, Skyrim, pretending that they're resting or hunting to feed their character when the game (without mods) doesn't take those parameters into account at all, it boggles my mind. They claim that, this way, they're more "immersed" in the experience, but, to be honest, if find that absolutely ridiculous, because it doesn't make sense to me, it just seems pointless. The idea of "playing a role for yourself" is indeed very weird to me. Why play a role when there's no audience (or, rather, no other participants) ?
To me, "immersion" has nothing to do with pretending or roleplaying or anything. Just being absorbed in a convincing game world, which thus needs good reactivity and enticing gameplay.
On the other hand, the alternative you propose is not that bad : in terms of choices & consequences, I can live with a little more flavor text for the people who need more "roleplaying" variety, as long as the actual different outcomes are there for the significant choices. This way, we get the best of both worlds, right ?
If there were multiple different dialogue options, then they WOULDN'T be cosmetic, it would be easy to adjust the numbers they move the affection stat behind the scenes for each of the options, so that each option would give a different amount of positive or negative affection.
It's the actual writing of all those dialogue options that would be the hard part.
I have nothing against more dialogue options with more traits variation, etc. (They might be a little "cheap", but they're good enough for me
) The problem I have is with cosmetic choices and decisions -- whether they come in the form of dialogues (most often) or other ways.
