Fuck Being a Good Person

[RJ 17]

And what do we burn, apart from witches? MOAR WITCHEZ!

Damn, those are some coherent and insightful ramblings! By all means, do continue.

Why do you suppose developers have, more or less, abandoned a genuine "Bad Guys Win" scenario?

Why, thank you. I thought it was a pretty good little shpeel as well.

As for why I suppose developers have given up on games like KotOR which have a genuine Bad Guy Wins ending? I really can't say. I can't imagine that it was all that difficult making KotOR the way they did, best I can guess is it's either laziness and/or being rushed too much. Really all KotOR had to do was make two endings for their game that were exact opposite of each other. Sith win vs Republic wins. But like I said in my previous post, the story plays a large part of why KotOR was able to do this.

You couldn't, for instance, have a Mass Effect series if Shepard meets Saren on Virmire and says "You know what? You're right. Screw fighting when we're just going to be annihilated, I'm joining with you and the Reapers."

But wouldn't the be fucking sweet? ME 2 and 3, if you made that choice, become Shepard leading the Reaper forces in cleansing the galaxy... >:3

 

[LeroyJenkinsthe2nd]

And what do we burn, apart from witches? MOAR WITCHEZ!

Damn, those are some coherent and insightful ramblings! By all means, do continue.

Why do you suppose developers have, more or less, abandoned a genuine "Bad Guys Win" scenario?

Why, thank you. I thought it was a pretty good little shpeel as well.

As for why I suppose developers have given up on games like KotOR which have a genuine Bad Guy Wins ending? I really can't say. I can't imagine that it was all that difficult making KotOR the way they did, best I can guess is it's either laziness and/or being rushed too much. Really all KotOR had to do was make two endings for their game that were exact opposite of each other. Sith win vs Republic wins. But like I said in my previous post, the story plays a large part of why KotOR was able to do this.

You couldn't, for instance, have a Mass Effect series if Shepard meets Saren on Virmire and says "You know what? You're right. Screw fighting when we're just going to be annihilated, I'm joining with you and the Reapers."

But wouldn't the be fucking sweet? ME 2 and 3, if you made that choice, become Shepard leading the Reaper forces in cleansing the galaxy... >:3

You know, that would be pretty awesome, getting to destroy cities alongside brutes & banshees, maybe those giant flying beetle things from the second one. It would kind of streach one's suspension of disbeleif since theyd be giving command over their forces to somebody they consider less than an insect, but screw believability, playing as reaper synthetics would be badass!

 

[RJ 17]

Damn, those are some coherent and insightful ramblings! By all means, do continue.

Why do you suppose developers have, more or less, abandoned a genuine "Bad Guys Win" scenario?

You know, I've actually thought some better...well thoughts on the matter since I posted last, it kinda goes along with this:

You know, that would be pretty awesome, getting to destroy cities alongside brutes & banshees, maybe those giant flying beetle things from the second one. It would kind of streach one's suspension of disbeleif since theyd be giving command over their forces to somebody they consider less than an insect, but screw believability, playing as reaper synthetics would be badass!

Basically the problem is that most every RPG that comes out these days is meant to be part of a series, as such you can't have a main character making a choice that utterly derails the rest of the story. When you think of KotOR, despite the fact that it had a sequel, it really was more or less a stand-alone game. That is, the actions of Revan in the first game really have no impact on the events in the 2nd game. Since it is essentially a stand-alone title, it was free to end things with two opposite endings.

In order to do that in a game series, you'd have to make the "I wanna be a baddie!" decision at the end of the 3rd game (which would be lame and we'd all complain about it seeming forced or token). Or, if you make it at the end of the first game, to REALLY pull it off, you'd have to essentially start making 2 different games for each new one in the series, one that covered the possibilities if the person chose evil in the first game and one for if they chose good. Otherwise you'd have the fanbase bitching and moaning that there's no real choice, some conversations are different but that's the only real effect, blah blah piss moan. So what do you do? Spend a crap ton of time and money developing two similar games that are different at their core and slap'em onto one disc? And repeat this process for each new game in the series?

As badass as that would likely make your company, I can only imagine it wouldn't be fiscally sustainable.

 

[DementedSheep]

But in DE:HR, The Witcher and even Mass effect to some extent (tho you have a bit more freedom here) you aren?t creating your own character. You are role playing as Geralt, Adam Jensen or Shepard and they are not blank slates. You are presented with multiple ways in which that character could react to that situation and you pick which way you want it to go.

There is also the problem of writing a plot without a fixed main character, especially if the character could potentially have no reason to even care in the first place. Then there is the cost of adding more dialogue, more outcomes and more quests. If your character doesn?t care about others at all its harder to write quests that it makes sense for them to be involved in, it?s harder to write interesting quests that both would want to do and a lot of time being ?evil? or at least openly evil just isn?t going to be beneficial to you anyway.

 

[Manji187]

Basically the problem is that most every RPG that comes out these days is meant to be part of a series, as such you can't have a main character making a choice that utterly derails the rest of the story. When you think of KotOR, despite the fact that it had a sequel, it really was more or less a stand-alone game. That is, the actions of Revan in the first game really have no impact on the events in the 2nd game. Since it is essentially a stand-alone title, it was free to end things with two opposite endings.

In order to do that in a game series, you'd have to make the "I wanna be a baddie!" decision at the end of the 3rd game (which would be lame and we'd all complain about it seeming forced or token). Or, if you make it at the end of the first game, to REALLY pull it off, you'd have to essentially start making 2 different games for each new one in the series, one that covered the possibilities if the person chose evil in the first game and one for if they chose good. Otherwise you'd have the fanbase bitching and moaning that there's no real choice, some conversations are different but that's the only real effect, blah blah piss moan. So what do you do? Spend a crap ton of time and money developing two similar games that are different at their core and slap'em onto one disc? And repeat this process for each new game in the series?

As badass as that would likely make your company, I can only imagine it wouldn't be fiscally sustainable.

So, in essence; financial/ economic considerations are "law". And since serial production seems to have become the standard, we are unlikely to see a true "Bad Guys Win" scenario in future games unless some developer goes out on a limb to realize it in the face of all the accompanying risk, whether real or perceived. I.e. unless someone grows a pair, we can wait until hell freezes over?

 

[RJ 17]

Basically the problem is that most every RPG that comes out these days is meant to be part of a series, as such you can't have a main character making a choice that utterly derails the rest of the story. When you think of KotOR, despite the fact that it had a sequel, it really was more or less a stand-alone game. That is, the actions of Revan in the first game really have no impact on the events in the 2nd game. Since it is essentially a stand-alone title, it was free to end things with two opposite endings.

In order to do that in a game series, you'd have to make the "I wanna be a baddie!" decision at the end of the 3rd game (which would be lame and we'd all complain about it seeming forced or token). Or, if you make it at the end of the first game, to REALLY pull it off, you'd have to essentially start making 2 different games for each new one in the series, one that covered the possibilities if the person chose evil in the first game and one for if they chose good. Otherwise you'd have the fanbase bitching and moaning that there's no real choice, some conversations are different but that's the only real effect, blah blah piss moan. So what do you do? Spend a crap ton of time and money developing two similar games that are different at their core and slap'em onto one disc? And repeat this process for each new game in the series?

As badass as that would likely make your company, I can only imagine it wouldn't be fiscally sustainable.

So, in essence; financial/ economic considerations are "law". And since serial production seems to have become the standard, we are unlikely to see a true "Bad Guys Win" scenario in future games unless some developer goes out on a limb to realize it in the face of all the accompanying risk, whether real or perceived. I.e. unless someone grows a pair, we can wait until hell freezes over?

Pretty much how I see it. It'd just cost too much time and resources in order to make a two games out of one. It's a great theory that would likely make for a badass game, but I highly doubt such a game will be coming out any time soon.