The Great Tournament 2

This game is one of the more interesting branching sequels I've seen in an IF game.

I played through 2 rounds. In the first, I was married to the queen. It was up to me to participate in a fake tournament, organize the kingdom in the queen's absence, deal with diplomatic treaties, negotiate with barbarians, and engage in wars. I died in good old age surrounded by family.

In the second version, I was a minor lord in a kingdom ruled by evil, mocked and despised and humiliated by the evil king. I was thrown in jail, and took over my daughter, and ran into some familiar companions that gave me a smile. I didn't see the end of this run, as I died after finding my father but giving the reason for the evil king to kill me.

I think there are other possibilities as well, as you can play as a non-king lord and there are also some special quests from the main menu.

Overall, I was pleased by the level of detail and amount of polish. Some of the fights did drag, as other reviewers have noted. There was a lot more storytelling in this game, more descriptiveness, especially in the 'kingdom of evil' version where you rebel (there is one actual story-story that takes up like 8 pages).

One thing I like about this game is that it has clear evil and clear good, not of people (who are generally mixed good and evil, with some noticeable exclusions) but of acts and options. Mercenaries actually kill people; good people can become damaged after imprisonment and torture. Death is real and can happen; women and children can be lost in war, but relief can come and justice can be served.

When playing some of the less popular official Choice of Games, which are designed to have multiple competing interests, one common thing I see is having two or more factions set up that theoretically oppose each other but don't really do anything 'wrong'. Everything is just a misunderstanding, or a mild difference of political opinions (I've done this before myself). What a lot of the best hosted games do (and best choice of games do) is, when they come to the brink of making a character actually unethical or an act truly awful, they don't pull back, but push through it and allow evil to exist. Like Choice of Robots letting you decide to conquer the world with a robot army or develop doctor robots to save your mother's life or a companion robot to marry, you can make decisions that are actually evil or actually good or both.

David and Goliath wouldn't be nearly as interesting if Goliath was just gently bonking guys on the head instead of killing them. Hamlet would be much less interesting if it turns out the uncle accidentally gave the king an overdose and Hamlet forgives him and asks him to talk it out. If Cinderella gets along with the step-mother and sisters, then why would she even want to leave?

When I say it's good for games to allow true evil, I don't mean this in a grimdark way, like a game having a lot of murder or sexual assault with an awful protagonist is good; I don't really enjoy games like that. I like it when the bad contrasts with the good; people can die, but they can also be saved. We can let people down, but we can raise them up, too. Depicting real evil acts allows real good acts, and vice versa. A completely grimdark game is just as boring as a completely harm-free game. And like I said, it's the acts that are good and evil, not the people. This game does a good job with that, like a neighboring country that can be an ally but also can be overbearing, or a barbarian tribe that loves violence but respects you if you are a noble warrior.

Anyway, my main complaint of Swamp Castle was that it was too short, and this is the opposite of that, so I enjoyed this a lot.