239: Curiosity Killed the NPC

[theultimateend]

I never said anything about character development.

You most certainly did. Go back to the original post that I quoted and read the first line over: "This why I hate Western RPG's in general: not enough choices with the character development. You can either be good, evil or a neutral is almost always cowardly."

Western RPGS are lying to everyone with their illusion of choice. You are railroaded down three different paths and they get praised for it.

I'll concede that in the end, you do get railroaded to a certain extent, but like J234 said, that's really more a problem with the medium than it is a problem with the genre. Unless you have a moderator that can actually sit down with you and appropriately respond to every single choice you could possibly make in any given situation, you're going to get railroaded. That isn't a matter of JPRG v. WRPG; it's pen-and-paper v. electronics.

You do not get to impose your personality and values onto a character at all. All you are doing is choosing the one that comes closest to your values.

I fail to see how that statement is any less true when you apply it to JRPGs.

Anytime you bring up this point to someone you should realize immediately that you are wasting your time.

These people have already convinced themselves that there is no railroad no matter how blatantly obvious it is (you will likely never kill an actual critical NPC in a Western RPG, they are impervious to death).

The only think Western RPGs really give you that Eastern ones don't is the ability to walk into extremely high level dangerous areas immediately. It is possible in some JRPGs but it usually requires some trickery, in WRPG's you need just point north and walk for 10 minutes.

I love both Genres but neither is an RPG because neither lets me be true to myself. The decisions in dialogue for every Bethesda game does not match what my guy would say. Sometimes they'll only give you negative or positive answers to move the story they want.

I like how front and center JRPG's are about it. They don't yank your chain with multiple dialogue options to the same outcome, the punch you in the asshole and tell you to stop crying like a little *****. It is nice to get that kind of brutal honesty.

Look, I acknowledged that there's a railroad, as did J234. That's not the problem I have with what malestrithe was saying. My problem is that he was acting as though, somehow, having a character written up for you gives you a better opportunity to role play as whatever you like than being given the "illusion of choice." Fact is that you get railroaded either way, so it's kind of ridiculous to bash one genre for it while praising another that is just as restrictive, if not more so.

Oh well then no arguments.

I like them both .

 

[ender214]

I try not to reload games because I made a decision that didn't match what I wanted the character to be. Because, when I try to tell myself it would have been different if I was really the character, I was the character, I controlled his actions, I made his decisions. To say that things would have ended differently would have been lying to myself. Instead, I try to learn more about who I really I am from my actions in morality games, to reveal how I would act if I was given such vast power over others. I never hate my character in a morality game. It would be the same as hating myself.

 

[Soulfoodman]

Well, I was never a fan of the negative karma I got for shooting the guy that made Ultrajet in fallout 3. I saved the wasteland from the use of an even more potent drug and ended it then and there. I could have payed a blind eye, but no. I killed him and it took away karma. I don't want to get into the "who's worse, the druggie of the drug dealer" but I still feel like it should have at least had negative effect on my karma...

I know what you mean. One thing I always felt was lacking from Fallout 3 were quests that were less black and white when it came to doing good and bad. I wish there were more times where your decisions would fall into the gray area in between. Where you would make the choice that sounded just but would have adverse consequences where your choice ended up doing bad too, and vice versa. This is why I really liked "The Pitt." You find out some things near the end that make you question the choices you may have made. My character is a mostly good character. I genuinely have a hard time making an evil character because that's just how I am. I accept this. But, I still want more instances where right and wrong are not so clear cut, just because you have to think more about the effect of your actions. Another game that disappointed me in this area was Bioshock, specifically the ending. I mean, come on. Three endings, and two were exactly the same except for the tone of the narrator's voice.

 

[chartermagix]

fallout 3 is the only sandbox rpg that i own (at the moment), my character seems generally a very good person, all the followers ive tried to recruit have told me my kharma is too high; i quite like my character.

i still got the sheriff killed, even though i knew it was coming and went and leveled up before trying the megaton quest, he was killed with the first shot.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Actually, if you're fast enough you can kill Mr. Burke before he shoots Simms.

I tried 3 times with a shotgun until I could save Simms.

As for the game, I understand, and that is why I can never make my character evil, because I want to portray a hero, not just play a game, and the hero is portraying what you see in yourself (Provided you play it seriously, and not just murder everyone).

In other news, my brother started playing it.

Spoiler: list o grievances

Lesseee, here...
he killed butch after saving his mom, killed the overseer, and the first thing he did when discovering megaton was baseball-bat the robot standing guard!
5 minutes later, he was at tenpenny tower, nuking the place, shortly before killing both Mr. Burke and Whatshisface Tenpenny.
Twas a laugh-filled evening, this.

 

[SAMAS]

I preferred the Mass Effect take on morality, then say fallout 3 or KOTOR, I don't want to always be good, so i'll make the choices I feel need making, if that means dooming a species out of existence then so be it, for the safety of all. it shouldn't negate the good things i have done, and vice versa.

No, if you cause a species to go extinct, especially if it was for the sake of not being too nice, your previous goodness goes right down the crapper in real life, too.

But on to the point at hand: I find it kind of hard to sympathize with the author. It wasn't his character being the coward, it was him. He is the one who chickened out of a situation he had already won, and refused to try to do it better just to preserve his hit point count. He tries to talk about living with his character's decision, when it was his refusal to "live" with that very decision the first time that put him in that situation.

How can you say: "I hated him for being a coward" when it was your own cowardice that made him so?

 

[Flying Dagger]

I preferred the Mass Effect take on morality, then say fallout 3 or KOTOR, I don't want to always be good, so i'll make the choices I feel need making, if that means dooming a species out of existence then so be it, for the safety of all. it shouldn't negate the good things i have done, and vice versa.

No, if you cause a species to go extinct, especially if it was for the sake of not being too nice, your previous goodness goes right down the crapper in real life, too.

I haven't checked my "real life morality" bar yet.
In real life with the media as it is, you could cure cancer one day, but if you accidently run over a child the next day you'll still be a villain.

Though in the eyes of any rational person it makes sense that if you do good, then bad, you shouldn't be judged the same as someone who has made only neutral choices, you should be judged by the merits of both.

And if you are taking issue over animal rights i can only tell you that if you are the sort of person who gives to the RSPCA and not the NSPCC then you disgust me, as we live the twisted times where a society for protecting animals has more funding then one that protects children, so don't get me started on that bullshit.

 

[SAMAS]

I preferred the Mass Effect take on morality, then say fallout 3 or KOTOR, I don't want to always be good, so i'll make the choices I feel need making, if that means dooming a species out of existence then so be it, for the safety of all. it shouldn't negate the good things i have done, and vice versa.

No, if you cause a species to go extinct, especially if it was for the sake of not being too nice, your previous goodness goes right down the crapper in real life, too.

I haven't checked my "real life morality" bar yet.
In real life with the media as it is, you could cure cancer one day, but if you accidently run over a child the next day you'll still be a villain.

Though in the eyes of any rational person it makes sense that if you do good, then bad, you shouldn't be judged the same as someone who has made only neutral choices, you should be judged by the merits of both.

Should being the operative word. Realistically, many people will brand you guilty just from the accusation (certain factors like present fame, physical appearance, and wealth notwithstanding). Look what it did to Michael Jackson. It took his death for many people to talk positively about him again.

And if you are taking issue over animal rights i can only tell you that if you are the sort of person who gives to the RSPCA and not the NSPCC then you disgust me, as we live the twisted times where a society for protecting animals has more funding then one that protects children, so don't get me started on that bullshit.

Um... How did the R/ASPCA get involved in this?

And what if I gave to both? (Actually, I'm more likely to give to Goodwill, Clothing Donation, or the Salvation Army anyway)

 

[Flying Dagger]

Should being the operative word. Realistically, many people will brand you guilty just from the accusation (certain factors like present fame, physical appearance, and wealth notwithstanding). Look what it did to Michael Jackson. It took his death for many people to talk positively about him again.

And what if I gave to both? (Actually, I'm more likely to give to Goodwill, Clothing Donation, or the Salvation Army anyway)

I can only really say what i want from a game, i feel a game is better if it recognises that the person who walked the middle path gained benefits from both camps, whereas the one who hasn't walked anywhere has gained nothing.
Like in fall out 3, where if you were a dick, people in the slaver camp would give you stuff, but if you were good, people in megaton gave you stuff. Yet if you were neutral, nothing you did would be recognised at that level. even though mostly the stuff is awful and you don't want it, it's nice to be acknowledged, one way or another.
Mass effect did a nice thing where whilst you couldn't lower how evil you'd been in the past, it didn't effectively punish you for deciding to go good after halfway through. I'm currently about 2/3 good 1/3 bad on it, but instead of just having a bar showing 1/3 along the way to jesus, i have two bars each showing my progress, allowing for a more fully developped character.

The RSPCA element was if you were getting pissed off at me on a "cruelty to animals" reason for getting rid of a species. I personally think priorities need to be put in order, and it needs to be at least at the point where the opportunity cost of helping one child is in the region of 250 animals.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, it's like this.

One of the problems I have with RPG video games in general is that they tend to make being a villain or anti-hero annoying rather than cool for the most part. In playing Renegade in Mass Effect for example, the actions I wind up taking for points make my character a jerk off rather than a ruthless and brutal "get the job done no matter what the cost" type. Even in Fallout 3 it tends to be about extremes. While there is a neutral "option" in general you either wind up being a complete White Knight or a cackling, colorless blood soaked Psychopath.

I guess while this is accurate to villainy to some extent, notice that fiction is full of awesome villains that have even spawned their own stories due to popularity. Comics are infamous for this where characters like "Harley Quinn" went from a bit character in a cartoon show, to a regular in the Batman comics main continuity, and even carrying her own comic series for a while. The same happened with Wildstorm's "DV8" and we even saw villain titles like "The Thunderbolts" launched that seem to be going strong today. Venom, Carnage, Sabertooth... there are dozens.

In general in Video Game RPGs I just don't feel that cool playing the bad guy. The comic book analogy isn't perfect to the genere most games cover, but still... they usually tend to make being a brutal thug boring.

I am not the first person to say it, but games, especially those made by companies like Bioware, need to come up with some more flexibility.

I mean in Mass Effect for example it would be nice to be able to play a "mission first" type who is who doesn't go out of his way to save people when it could compromise the bottom line (ie heroism isn't worth the potential price) without also having to act like a rude, racist jerk all the time when off mission. However if I don't play entirely renegade I won't have enough points to unlock the needed dialogue options to do some nessicary things later on.

 

[SAMAS]

Should being the operative word. Realistically, many people will brand you guilty just from the accusation (certain factors like present fame, physical appearance, and wealth notwithstanding). Look what it did to Michael Jackson. It took his death for many people to talk positively about him again.

And what if I gave to both? (Actually, I'm more likely to give to Goodwill, Clothing Donation, or the Salvation Army anyway)

I can only really say what i want from a game, i feel a game is better if it recognises that the person who walked the middle path gained benefits from both camps, whereas the one who hasn't walked anywhere has gained nothing.
Like in fall out 3, where if you were a dick, people in the slaver camp would give you stuff, but if you were good, people in megaton gave you stuff. Yet if you were neutral, nothing you did would be recognised at that level. even though mostly the stuff is awful and you don't want it, it's nice to be acknowledged, one way or another.

That's because neither side would trust you all the way. After all, you're working with the other guy too, what's to stop you from taking any reward they give you and turning it against them? People in real life don't like it when others try to play them and their enemies off with each other, so trying to please two opposites ends with you pleasing neither. There's no reward for fence-sitting.

Mass effect did a nice thing where whilst you couldn't lower how evil you'd been in the past, it didn't effectively punish you for deciding to go good after halfway through. I'm currently about 2/3 good 1/3 bad on it, but instead of just having a bar showing 1/3 along the way to jesus, i have two bars each showing my progress, allowing for a more fully developped character.

I haven't played ME, so I can't say for sure how that works, but IIRC, the line in ME is less Good/Evil, or even Empire [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEmpire]/Federation [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFederation] and more like Saint/Jackass. Both sides are not quite diametrically opposed to each other. Nonetheless, you only get some of both, and not all of either. Doing both great good and great bad doesn't make you both a great hero and a great villain at the same time.

The RSPCA element was if you were getting pissed off at me on a "cruelty to animals" reason for getting rid of a species. I personally think priorities need to be put in order, and it needs to be at least at the point where the opportunity cost of helping one child is in the region of 250 animals.

The correct answer, in my opinion, is to prevent the choice from happening at all. Remember, both people and animals can be relocated.

 

[Flying Dagger]

That's because neither side would trust you all the way. After all, you're working with the other guy too, what's to stop you from taking any reward they give you and turning it against them? People in real life don't like it when others try to play them and their enemies off with each other, so trying to please two opposites ends with you pleasing neither. There's no reward for fence-sitting.

As a fan of developped characters i can't say i agree here, take fall out 3, because i decided not to give a beggar some water, doesn't mean i'd not want to save the city. both give me opposing karma boosts, but neither are "opposing factors."

I haven't played ME, so I can't say for sure how that works, but IIRC, the line in ME is less Good/Evil, or even Empire [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEmpire]/Federation [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFederation] and more like Saint/Jackass. Both sides are not quite diametrically opposed to each other. Nonetheless, you only get some of both, and not all of either. Doing both great good and great bad doesn't make you both a great hero and a great villain at the same time.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. You can and at any one time should be both a great hero and a great villain. If you're simply picking one of the three of "good, neutral and bad" you aren't really that free to develop. What i liked about Mass Effect was that in some cases, the morality lines were blurred, the good choice, whilst always clearly marked, wasn't always the best choice. even with the gameplay issues (dodgy shooting mechanic, for me I also experienced major difficulty but i could have just built my character wrong) i really suggest you pick it up.

The correct answer, in my opinion, is to prevent the choice from happening at all. Remember, both people and animals can be relocated.

Modern economics teaches there will always be a choice, which is really what Opportunity cost is all about, what you lose by doing the next best alternative, as opposed to doing what's best, and it's currently far from where morality dictates it should be.

 

[Swaki]

amazing article, one of the best i have seen here since the story about the goat killer, and i too lost the sheriff, and true out the rest of the game i tried to make up for it, i took the good and diplomatic way, despise that it wasn't always the choice i wanted to make, but i did the right thing to make up for one of the few good men of the Apocalypse's dead and his son now alone in a cold dangerous world.

...how awesome was/is fallout 3 ^^

 

[Baldry]

You could always shoot the gun out of burkes hand, always worked for me.

OT: Its these games with the morales which have helped me realise that im a good person, all the actions I choose are the right ones, and whenever I do something wrong I feel....bad

 

[WolfThomas]

Imagine if almost every act you perform in some way influences the future - to the extent that to go back to "undo" something you've done would require a load to a save hours and hours back in time.

Have you played the Witcher? It's pretty much that, you make a decision and the ramifications only play out at least an hour later, with artwork and Geralt narrating what happened.

 

[felixader]

Actually, if you're fast enough you can kill Mr. Burke before he shoots Simms.

That is what i also wanted to say. i did load this part three times till i had the sheriff survived.

At the End i even did stand myself between the sheriff and mister whitesuit-ass and catched some bullets for the sheriff. ^^

 

[ImpostorZim]

I've never played FallOut 3, but I know for a fact that I've felt this playing TESIII: Morrowind. I liked my character to be fair and just. Everytime I rescued slaves down in the mining shafts, I felt better about myself. I obviously made a lot of decisions with Murtagh that I'd take back, like killing everyone in a tavern for a stupid ring. I knew they were the supposed enemy, but just the thought of them not being there anymore (cause they were dead), made me feel uneasy.

 

[SAMAS]

That's because neither side would trust you all the way. After all, you're working with the other guy too, what's to stop you from taking any reward they give you and turning it against them? People in real life don't like it when others try to play them and their enemies off with each other, so trying to please two opposites ends with you pleasing neither. There's no reward for fence-sitting.

As a fan of developped characters i can't say i agree here, take fall out 3, because i decided not to give a beggar some water, doesn't mean i'd not want to save the city. both give me opposing karma boosts, but neither are "opposing factors."

Sometimes, and this isn't just a matter of game limitations, it's not a matter of saving the city, but whose side you're "on." In this case, helping the beggar is a way of showing the people of Megaton that you're willing to help one of them, thus it counts as the "Megaton" side of the Karma meter. If you don't, you're just another Outsider.

Now, there's still the problem of Karma meters being too absolute, but it will take time to make an easy, yet nuanced Karma Meter.

I haven't played ME, so I can't say for sure how that works, but IIRC, the line in ME is less Good/Evil, or even Empire [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEmpire]/Federation [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFederation] and more like Saint/Jackass. Both sides are not quite diametrically opposed to each other. Nonetheless, you only get some of both, and not all of either. Doing both great good and great bad doesn't make you both a great hero and a great villain at the same time.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. You can and at any one time should be both a great hero and a great villain. If you're simply picking one of the three of "good, neutral and bad" you aren't really that free to develop. What i liked about Mass Effect was that in some cases, the morality lines were blurred, the good choice, whilst always clearly marked, wasn't always the best choice. even with the gameplay issues (dodgy shooting mechanic, for me I also experienced major difficulty but i could have just built my character wrong) i really suggest you pick it up.

That would require me to pick up a PS3/360/better PC first.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

This was one of the things I loved about Fallout 3. I started off trying to be the caring, philanthropist hero, but there are hard decisions to be made. It isn't always clear who is the good guy or the bad guy and you can't save everybody. Really, it's a parallel of real-life in that respect. And I really enjoyed that part. I couldn't just mow down the baddies; I really had to consider the trade-offs involved in many of the choices I encountered. Not to mention that, just like in real life, it's often more difficult to do the "right thing".

Unfortunately, I found trying to be the "bad guy" wasn't nearly as easy. For one, it seemed completely counter to the overarching story of tracking down your dad, who appears to be trying to save the world. I suppose you could be tracking him down to kill him, but it's set out quite early that you should be trying to help him. Also, many of the people in the game are naturally good, so being a bad guy tends to lock you out of many parts of the game. Perhaps there are just as many areas you can only go if you are a bad guy -- I don't know, because I had enough trouble early on that I was pushed into being a nicer guy.

Funny how, even though they give you complete freedom to make your own decision, which decision you make can still be heavily influenced by the game. As you play the game, the game plays you.

 

[Chris Sharka]

I usually reload. Often the Renegade option in Mass Effect is a hell of a lot more of dick move than it seems from the preview text of the option.

Truth.

I actually like to keep 2 save files, and I save often. The first is my character with all the mistakes I didn't want to make, the second is the gleaming paragon of hope I want him or her to be.

For that particular scenario in Fallout 3 I ramped the game level down to the easiest setting so I can kill Burke before he kills Lucas. Don't get me wrong, I like to be challenged in games, but I don't think I should have to "level" to have my character play the role I want him to. I shouldn't have to have a plasma rifle with maxed out energy weapons and power armor in order to kill a man during what I feel should be a cinematic sequence rather than raw game play.

In my "real character"'s game I'm the cowboy that sees Burke upholstering his weapon draws his six shooter and fires from the hip to save the sheriff. It's a shame I can't simply shoot Burke's gun from his hand and follow up with a straight right, breaking some teeth, but such is non-pencil and paper gameplay. Limited.

My "mistake character" has taken up Lucas's mantle. His son may be the "new sheriff" But I disarmed the bomb and have to be the one to keep order.