#9
- Thread starter Mark J Kline
- Start date
As always a fascinating article.
I have to admit, I can never seem to bring myself to been the "Bad" guy, so to speak - like in ME2, I will always run PAragon, and in Fallout 3, I would be good.
I tried the others, but, it just didnt sit well with me at all, and my moral compass was going haywire from the thought of it.
I have to admit, I can never seem to bring myself to been the "Bad" guy, so to speak - like in ME2, I will always run PAragon, and in Fallout 3, I would be good.
I tried the others, but, it just didnt sit well with me at all, and my moral compass was going haywire from the thought of it.
I think a big part of it is why you play games. Gamers who are more system oriented and looking to maximze their in-game potential typically don't mind using evil to exploit in-game characters. Gamers who are more focused on roleplaying tend to feel guilty about being evil. Then you have story folks who like to play through twice so they can see the full range of good and evil options.
Personally, I always feel too guilty to be evil.
Personally, I always feel too guilty to be evil.
Me too. That is, until the AI breaks and I get completely sucked out of the game, then it can be pretty fun to kill, steal, and burn shit.Steve Butts said:
But the "role players" label includes people like the... asker (or w/e you'd say), in the article, and I think you over-generalize by suggesting most of them feel guilty about being evil (in game; he obviously does afterward, but it's like meta-guilt). I'd be willing to bet there are lots of remorseless evil doers out there.
Well i just played a round of civ V where i invented nukes for the first time and had a blast testing them out on the other players, in this case NPCs. And once i get going in civ i can be quite ruthless and cunning but the thing is i have a hard time being the one that starts the fight, unless i can find some way to "justify" it like "i was about to claim that territory!" and yeah, the AI just making such a bad decision that it pulls me out of the game is also enough to trigger one of my killing sprees.
A friend of mine has a novel theory: That most children are inherently psychos, what with the burning ants and tearing wings off flies, and the adults who are severely bent are kids who never gained empathy or respect for society's rules.
I see another pattern to this too, one that puts significant weight on immersion and characterization. Those that ask themselves what they'd do in that situation and those that choose to just have fun seem to have far different experiences. I like to play like I'm living in the game world and often find myself choosing the good path, even in Fallout 3 I found myself racked with guilt at the death of the Megaton NPCs. But in the same breath I can also say that in a game of GTA IV or Just Cause 2 I can kill piles of NPCs without feeling anything. Mostly I'll just laugh and kill some more. So is living out the experience in a game different than just running around blowing stuff up?
I may not have worded this properly, but I think I've gotten my point across. Is there a difference in being evil while being immersed in the game world as compared to shrugging it off and playing it like a game instead of an interactive story?
I may not have worded this properly, but I think I've gotten my point across. Is there a difference in being evil while being immersed in the game world as compared to shrugging it off and playing it like a game instead of an interactive story?
You just go ahead and keep on doubting my megalomaniacal intentions Doc. One day soon tho, my army of winged machine elves will be ready, and I will conquer the world!
Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
In case you haven't guessed, I always play the evil protagonist. I love doing to NPCs the kind things I can't do to my employees. Darn labour laws!
Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
In case you haven't guessed, I always play the evil protagonist. I love doing to NPCs the kind things I can't do to my employees. Darn labour laws!
in games with moral meters I tend to end up on evil but I don't try to be evil I just think well I have no money or ammunition and I am wondering through a wasteland of course I am going to sneak kill the next guy I see and steal all of his stuff it's not evil it is survival. Also why is it evil not to give the guy that walked up to me asking for half my money because he is poor (only according to him) money I only have his word that he is poor that's why I think a reputation meter is better then a moral meter.
Evil characters are, to me, often the more interesting ones because unless they're completely dehumanized monsters whos dialog could basically be replaced with BLAAAAARFG! *cuts off heads* they must have a reason for doing what they do. Something that society as a whole doesn't appreciate or understand. Are they tormented or out for revenge? Do they think they're making the hard choice others failed to do? Are they perhaps labeled as evil because they're fighting for a different ideal than the generally accepted one?
The all-powerful good character is about as interesting as a book of matches, because they basically come off as flawless stoics who have no real sense of self. Unfortunately, most RPG-stories are geared towards the good path and leaves very little room for the player character to have ambitions of her own.
The all-powerful good character is about as interesting as a book of matches, because they basically come off as flawless stoics who have no real sense of self. Unfortunately, most RPG-stories are geared towards the good path and leaves very little room for the player character to have ambitions of her own.
Yeah, same. I've found in older games it was easier, but now, when so many people react. Especially in Dragon Age. I hate having my party angry with me, so there were moments I did something I didn't want for them. On one hand I really shouldn't care what they thing. On the other I really needed Wynne since she was the only spirit healer I had...Steve Butts said:
Personally I think alot of the time people know that they can act out what it would be like to be 'evil' in the confinds of a game because it is accessable and can be more fun but without any 'real' reprocussions.
Its basically all the thrill of being the bad guy without hurting anyone for real.
Much of the world is very focused on 'right and wrong', films, TV shows, books, games etc all seem to have a centrally 'good' character, even if they do go around killing people they generally are 'good' at the core.
Most RPGs follow this pattern as well because you have the ability to be nasty to someone or rough them up a little bit but when you finish the game you save the world, so doesn't the end justify the means? If you did nothing then the guy would have died, so surely its better that he had a broken nose than being dead?
When being surrounded by all this 'goody goody two shoes' around us all day it is a little refreshing to break from the norm and do something a little more risky, if anything to just break the boredom of always being the nice guy that saves the world but still has time to help little timmy ride his bike.
Off on a little tangent but I find that EVE online is a game where you can be very evil and its interesting to see how professional some of these 'evil' guy can be. Again alot of the time people know its a game and they CHOOSE to be 'bad' because its more fun / profitable etc and usually not because they are a bad person.
On another tangent its also interesting to see that on MMO / multiplayer games people find it easier to be nasty because the game itself dehumanises the players to a point where you can dismiss other players to be at the same level of NPCs (ie, without feelings) (ie, the greater internet f-wad theory
)
Its basically all the thrill of being the bad guy without hurting anyone for real.
Much of the world is very focused on 'right and wrong', films, TV shows, books, games etc all seem to have a centrally 'good' character, even if they do go around killing people they generally are 'good' at the core.
Most RPGs follow this pattern as well because you have the ability to be nasty to someone or rough them up a little bit but when you finish the game you save the world, so doesn't the end justify the means? If you did nothing then the guy would have died, so surely its better that he had a broken nose than being dead?
When being surrounded by all this 'goody goody two shoes' around us all day it is a little refreshing to break from the norm and do something a little more risky, if anything to just break the boredom of always being the nice guy that saves the world but still has time to help little timmy ride his bike.
Off on a little tangent but I find that EVE online is a game where you can be very evil and its interesting to see how professional some of these 'evil' guy can be. Again alot of the time people know its a game and they CHOOSE to be 'bad' because its more fun / profitable etc and usually not because they are a bad person.
On another tangent its also interesting to see that on MMO / multiplayer games people find it easier to be nasty because the game itself dehumanises the players to a point where you can dismiss other players to be at the same level of NPCs (ie, without feelings) (ie, the greater internet f-wad theory
)
In any RPG I've played I've almost never been able to be the "pure evil" character. I always feel guilty doing bad stuff, even though the ones who suffer are all just a bunch of A.I.
But in other games, like GTA, I enjoy plowing through a bunch of people or making a stand on a rooftop and taking dozens of cops down with me.
But in other games, like GTA, I enjoy plowing through a bunch of people or making a stand on a rooftop and taking dozens of cops down with me.