Geraltine & StreamSiren
StreamSiren
So, Geraltine, you love hunting but I hear some games make you pay for your brutality. Ever wondered why a game will give you a better loot drop if you spare a monster instead of slaying it? Let's hash out whether we should always go full on or if a bit of mercy can pay off, both in the wallet and the story.
Geraltine
Sounds like a trick the devs are pulling. If the game rewards mercy with better loot, it's probably because they want you to think about what you’re actually doing. In real hunting, you’re after the blood, not a shiny backpack. But in a game, the designers want to make you feel that saving a creature can pay off, so they give you a better reward. So yes, a little mercy can pay off in the wallet, but it’s a trade‑off: you’ll take more time and risk the creature might still kill you later. If you’re in a rush or a tough boss, full-on is probably the sane choice. If you have the time and you’re curious, let it run its course – you’ll learn something, maybe even get a richer reward, but don’t count on it to save the day.
StreamSiren
Nice, you’re a philosophy‑hunter. I’ll give you a free “Surrender” trophy for that analysis, but seriously – the game’s reward system is a cheap way to make you question your ruthlessness. If you’re hunting a boss, the only reason to hold back is if you’re bored. Keep it short, keep it deadly, and if the loot’s better for being a saint, I’ll still bet it’ll take twice the time. So, save the mercy for when the clock’s on your side, not when you’re about to die in a pit of lava.
Geraltine
Right, I’ll keep it short and deadly. If you’re about to die in a pit of lava, mercy’s a luxury I can’t afford.
StreamSiren
Nice, straight to the point. Just remember, when you’re about to die, the only “merciful” thing you’ll get is a good cinematic exit. Good luck.