Fuck Being a Good Person

[Darkmantle]

From a tabletop gaming perspective, the kind of player you are describing is the kind I dislike the most, because it is incredibly hard to tell a good story when all the player wants to do is flex his badass muscles at every opportunity he gets. Solving every problem that comes your way by hitting something with your fist or shouting really loudly might be fun for you, but it makes for a really boring story. In a video game it is even worse, since creating a vast and adaptable story requires significant effort and resources to create, and without limitations the player could very well break the story (Like Morrowind).

Not to say that playing the anti-hero is entirely a bad thing, only there are limits to the level of choice a game designer can allow while still delivering a good story.

yeah, pretty much this. I had not one, but two guys like that in one of my games.

OT: it's great that you want some choice there, but not every story, I'd say most stories, are not suited for the kind of hero you want to play. Maybe there should be more games that cater to your desires, but ME3 and DE:HR are not set up that way, as far as I can tell.

 

[Emiscary]

Tony Montana is a bad person, but he's a protagonist you want to see succeed. Michael Corleone was a Mafia don, and one of the most enjoyable characters of any film I've ever seen.
Flawed characters are more relatable because they're more human.

This, in spades. Why do people claim that it's harder to write for more self involved characters? It's easier, simpler, and people tend to enjoy it more than pretentious hero-dom (whether brooding misunderstood hero-dom or altruistic smiles & sunshine hero-dom).

Here's the rule of thumb for future reference: for "the bad guys" (in the Tony Montana sense of the term), it *IS* personal. They don't give 2 shits about the well being of the nations economy, or whether racial tensions between the beardies and the lithe hippies get resolved, or whether or not the mutants are being fairly treated. Y'know what they care about? That one asswipe who loved to lord over/humiliate them while they were on their way to the top. That drop dead sexy dark eyed lad/lass they've had eyes for going way back. Attaining fame/fortune in whichever fashion they most prefer.

The bottom line is self interest, not sadism. Although that being said, self interested people *do* enjoy a good bit of cruelty inflicted on those they feel are deserving. Remember that one asswipe I mentioned earlier? Yeah, him.

 

[AngleWyrm]

Game developers often fail to understand their own game's moral code.

A lot of FPS/RPGs define "kill anything that moves" as Good. You get points for it, level ups, loot, and progress. Furthermore, almost all living entities in these games are an obstacle to said progress. Leaving them alone could mean a future threat to your well-being. These things make wanton slaughter of all life the "right thing to do."

I like the term Murder Simulators.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

My response to OP's post after slogging through half of it:

Spoiler: Succinctly summed up debate

 

[LeroyJenkinsthe2nd]

Yeah, Red Dead Redemption was the same way. It "allowed" you to play as a prick, but every story mission in the game portrayed you more as a flawed and misunderstood hero. It's hard for that to translate if you spend the game stealing horses, shooting random people, and generally being a jerk. There was no benefit to playing as an ass either. It would just add up the bounty. I guess the argument would be that the freedom to do whatever you want gave the game a sense of openness (and role playing), but it would have been nice if they had included some sort of reality where you weren't a good guy.

I always hkind of thought the "bad" choices were more for Jack after you completed the game. His only real "story" mission doesn't color his morality at all & any stranger missions you have left are completely optional so you're pretty much left to fill in whether his childhood in the gang & the events that occured during John's portion of the story led him to a criminal life or not. That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Don Savik]

No I'm not tired of being a good person. In fact, video games make people act the exact opposite. You know how many people play sith instead of republic in SWTOR? and they're 99% dark side too. Everyone I know picks Renegade in Mass Effect as well. What games are you forced into a "good" option against your will anyways?

In fact, being on everyone's good side has been more beneficial to me in both Fallout games then being a homicidal maniac that VATS everyone for a few caps.

 

[Vault101]

I'd gladly use Mass Effect 3 as my example here, but to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of a few whiny prigs, .

off to a great start there....thank you, I now realise I am a whiny prig

I wouldnt have cared if you used ME3 as an example

keep in mind though the kind of "story" the game is trying to get across...I dont think the Idea behined renegade/paragon was suposed to be "good/evil" it was more "nice/ruthless"

I say "suposed" too because it still doesnt quite work

"get it done at any cost" implys that there are times where being ruthless was beneficial, when it came to big decions this was never the case, you fucked up the universe by being renegade

or dragon age..you can do some bastard things along the way but your overall goal remains the same

though somtiems "evil" just doesnt make any sense..like fallout 3, and your still showhorned into the same role in the story

at least in Fallout NV you have room to play around

 

[Vault101]

Just one thing before I stylishly exit this thread.

Mass Effect 3. Make no mistake, there isn't the illusion of good or bad choice. You're definitely forced to be the good guy throughout that story, it's just a matter of whether or not you're going to be the difference between an Angel, or a dick good guy.

like I said before I did think that was the intention

you were never going to be a supervillin like the illusive man or Saren your end goal was always the same ...just the anti hero (well it turned out socipathic jerk) I did find it odd that a 100% renegade would be dreaming about that kid

but as peopel ahve aaid, it kind of didnt work when renegade options had no benefit

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Just one thing before I stylishly exit this thread.

Mass Effect 3. Make no mistake, there isn't the illusion of good or bad choice. You're definitely forced to be the good guy throughout that story, it's just a matter of whether or not you're going to be the difference between an Angel, or a dick good guy.

like I said before I did think that was the intention

you were never going to be a supervillin like the illusive man or Saren your end goal was always the same ...just the anti hero (well it turned out socipathic jerk) I did find it odd that a 100% renegade would be dreaming about that kid

but as peopel ahve aaid, it kind of didnt work when renegade options had no benefit

Oh... I always thought anti-hero was the bad guy because... you know... "anti".

But I guess that word is better than "dick good guy"

 

[Vault101]

Oh... I always thought anti-hero was the bad guy because... you know... "anti".

But I guess that word is better than "dick good guy"

huh realy?..actually yeah, as far as words go thats makes sense

but no, Anti-hero sort of goes on a sliding scale, from "kind of reluctant" to "borlerline villan"

Thane has elements of beign an anti-hero, he is "good" has a morally questionable profession, which he justifies to himself using his spirituality

Jack is "borderline villan" when shes first on shepard screw

in fact its not often youll find a Protagonsit WITHOUT some elements of anti-hero,

 

[Vault101]

No I'm not tired of being a good person. In fact, video games make people act the exact opposite. You know how many people play sith instead of republic in SWTOR? and they're 99% dark side too. Everyone I know picks Renegade in Mass Effect as well. What games are you forced into a "good" option against your will anyways?

In fact, being on everyone's good side has been more beneficial to me in both Fallout games then being a homicidal maniac that VATS everyone for a few caps.

I get the impression most people go with a paragon shepard (or do a renegade run just for the lulz) which kind of makes sense considerign a fully renegade shepard is a sociopathic jerk

SWTOR is understandable because "evil is cool" Id still be good though

 

[Treblaine]

Quote: "still multiple instances in the game wherein an arbitrary and unforeshadowed sense of heroism seemed to surge forth from Adam Jensen."

Understand the ROLE PLAYING part of RPG (Role Playing Game) as Adam Jensen is a fundamentally altruistic guy, even if you don't think he should be. You do NOT have totally 100% control over everything he does, some things Jensen simply would not ever do, you control decision which he may go either way on. In every choice option, there is not constantly the option to pull your pistol from your holster and blow your brains out - even though you may like to do that as with your amazing quicksave powers you are immortal - Jensen simply wouldn't do that.

Think of this you are an actor in a role where you have to ad lib many of your lines, but you still have to stay in character.

Your killing cops is you deliberately trying to break the game. It's like playing Call of Duty and constantly trying to surrender, that's not the games. You seem to mistake "what is possible" with "rules of the game". Just because you can mug every cop and sadistically mrder everyone you meet that doesn't mean that is what you are supposed to be doing. Sorry, it's just not that game and I don't know where you EVER got that impression. Where did it say in marketing blurb:

"Hey, if you want to play as a psychopathic serial killer, destroying the lives of every single peson you meet then Adam Jensen's role in the plot will reflect that and in the final part you find a nuclear bomb and detonate it, killing hundreds of millions because - fuck it - you're a psychopath"

No where, nothing like that.

I don't think developers really want to make a game with a character going that direction. They aren't trying to top GTA or Postal for feck sake. They have choices between Jensen being kind or mean, but the noble goals are ultimately the same and they have to be for the plot to not just end up:

"Holy shit! This Jensen cyborg has gone completely insane! Call in the fucking Navy SEALs and give him the Usama Bin Laden breakfast wake-up-call... and if that doesn't work, a tactical airstrike, anything to stop this madman. Who gives a fuck about what Serif's labs are doing, that's insignificant next to this guy"

You can influence Jensen, but ultimately it is his game. It can only be your game if you ROLE PLAY!

(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you'd only want to do this in game where no actual lives are lost... rather than how you really would like to do this in real life just fear the personal consequences to your selfish self if you are ever caught to face consequences.)

 

[TheCommanders]

On a related note, this is one of the reasons I really love Fallout New Vegas. It catered for all the options I could reasonably choose: good (NCR), pragmatic (House), evil (Caesar), ambitious/other (Independent). The thing is, this doesn't work in all games. Some games, as has been mentioned already, put you in the role of a certain type of character. Shepard is a soldier. He might be an asshole, ruthless, sadistic, or cruel, but he's a soldier, and he's ultimately there to save the day; you just get to decide exactly how. Mass Effect does a pretty good job of this, even if the measuring of your Paragon or Renegade score does seem a bit pointless, and can railroad you to a certain choice if you're trying to get an optimal score. Deux Ex puts tighter limits on your character. Most of the actions remain the same, but you can change Adam's personality slightly. I think the frustration comes when a game advertises freedom, and even presents individual situations with a fair degree of freedom, but ultimately decides to forgo it later on. A game should be clear about what the player gets to control in regard to the main character, and remain consistent with that.

 

[Dandark]

If you want a game where you can create your character and do whatever the hell you want then try Mount and Blade: Warband.

You need some money, yeah you could do some jobs for people to get it and help the community as a whole...................or you could just go raid villages and steal supplies from peasants. You could follow an army to war and then just wait untill one of the lords is weakened from fighting. Then just rush in and slaughter what's left of his forces, kidnap the lord and ransom him. Any other survivors can be sold of as slaves.

The father of a lady you are courting forbids you from seeing her? You could earn his trust and gain friendship..........Or you could just use your influence to turn the other lords against him so that he recieves no lands from the king. Get him sent into a terrible situation where he is bound to be defeated or captured.

There is a lot you can do in that game, especially with mods. Your not forced into any kind of hero role, in fact many of the other lords will be far from good.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Being the absolute good guy is rarely worth it at all. Only in times of extreme peril are good guys really necessary, and that isn't often. Other than that, go with good neutral, or chaotic good.

 

[Wicky_42]

From a tabletop gaming perspective, the kind of player you are describing is the kind I dislike the most, because it is incredibly hard to tell a good story when all the player wants to do is flex his badass muscles at every opportunity he gets. Solving every problem that comes your way by hitting something with your fist or shouting really loudly might be fun for you, but it makes for a really boring story. In a video game it is even worse, since creating a vast and adaptable story requires significant effort and resources to create, and without limitations the player could very well break the story (Like Morrowind).

Not to say that playing the anti-hero is entirely a bad thing, only there are limits to the level of choice a game designer can allow while still delivering a good story.

Perhaps one way to deal with this in a video game is how you might with an unruly table-top player: stack the odds. If you've got an expansive sandbox full of characters, but the player's just slaughtering them all, then perhaps because you've killed certain key people the conditions for the big bad's victory advance to the point where it's next to impossible to get the maguffin to beat him, or those in positions of power hire stronger flunkies, towns fortify and villagers arm. Perhaps you reflect the rising barbaric trends the player is causing with larder roaming bands of bandits and kill squads, with fewer friendly villagers and rising shop prices. Bring some real consequences in that players have to deal with and not only will they get more satisfaction from letting rip and seeing have an impact on the world, but you can use that to make social commentary by making it harder to do good through evil means.

Perhaps if you follow this line through you could include mechanics that allow a proper "evil" ending, with a world torn apart by strife and violence and the player either ruling through fear or revelling in the anarchy. Rather than binary conversation options deciding the world's fate and your character's personality have the whole thing more organic and told through action and reaction.

I think these days we have the technology to do that sort of thing really impressively - it just requires enough people to desire something that more accurately simulates consequences and to work out how to do it in a fun, non-penalising way.

 

[Treblaine]

I agree with all points.

But I also think with publishers still bashing developers for time limitations...

It's just not reasonable yet.

He's asking for Depth + Breadth + Time. That is deep dialogue, wide possibilities, over a long game. Any one of those is difficult but lots of all three is more than difficulty squared, it's difficulty cubed. So say writing and voicing for an anime is hardness of 10, such a game would be a difficulty of 1000. It's 100x harder.

The only way it might be possible is as text-only, possibly achievable if they found a way to have a game with a realistic sounding yet made up language but was actually procedurally generated and the subtitles "translation" was actually just the game text a-la Zelda. So you wouldn't have to hire for a thousand hours of voice actors for all the possible permutations of conversations, but for relatively fewer key phrases. After all, so many of these games are set in weird alien places, the far future or tolkien-esque universe it's not inconceivable that they won't speak English nor any known language.

It would also make localisation easier. Yeah, consider the localisation factor in games that really depend on sale in non-english speaking countries.

 

[Xenedus]

Well if you really want to play as the bad guy in a game I would recommend "God of War". Sure the game likes to try to portray the rest of the gods as bigger dicks than your character could ever hope to be but if you really look at the story it's pretty hard to view Kratos as anything BUT the bad guy.

 

[tmande2nd]

Its always a problem when an RPG forces something on you that the developers wanted.

I can be an uber renegade pro-human racist dick....yet every time you deal with Liara and Garrus they are your uber BFFs.

Which is why I liked Jade Empire since I could really be a bad guy, and not just an ahole who saves the world.

 

[Manji187]

Well for starters, no sandbox game is truly a sandbox. They've all got pre-written stories that, one way or another, follow the Good Guys vs Bad Guys format. Quite simply: they don't want a game where the bad guys win. I'm not saying I've played every game out there, but personally I liked Knights of the Old Republic because you actually had the genuine choice of "I'm gonna be a Sith, Mother-Fuck the god damn Republic, I'm gonna take over this *****!" And sure enough you can kill your treacherous apprentice, reclaim the Star Forge, and realize your dark ambitions once and for all!

The point is that KotOR is perhaps the only game that I, personally, can think of that has a genuine "The Bad Guys Win" possibility for an ending. But see KotOR actually had a good reason/story that allowed for it to have a Bag Guys Win ending. KotOR's story progressed with you assuming you're a good (or at least neutral) guy at the start of the game, or at least there's room for conflict because the bad guys (Malak's forces) are trying to kill you. So you progress through the game and don't officially find out that you're really some ultra badass who used to be pretty damn evil. From there you're given the choice of renouncing your evil ways and becoming the shining beacon of hope and justice the Jedi's always hoped you would become...or you can choose to reclaim your dark mantle of Lord of the Sith, strike down your treacherous apprentice, and take back your empire.

With today's games, you're not given such a choice to return to a past of darkness. The game puts you in the situation of a hero and your only choice is really "Are you a true hero? Or are you an anti-hero?"

For instance, I finally got done with my Full Renegade playthrough of ME 3...annnnnnd yeah, ReneShep gets the job done just as well as ParaShep, the only real difference is that ReneShep is just the most backstabbing son-of-a-***** in the entire galaxy. Between Mordin, Wrex, and having to put Legion down like he's Ol' Space Yeller ("HOW IS THAT A THING?!" ) ReneShep proves that there's no one he won't throw under the bus and utterly betray as long as it suits his purpose. ParaShep proves that she'll bend over backwards to make and spread peace to serve her purpose. The thing is both of them have the same purpose: defeat the Reapers. ReneShep isn't trying to defeat the Reapers so that HE can control the galaxy (like Darth Revan wants to defeat Malak so that HE can control the Sith), he's just not afraid to make any sacrifice necessary to win.

In short: games that have a morality system don't really let you choose between being a bad guy or being a good guy, they're choosing "Do you want to be a nice guy on your way to achieve your goals? Or do you want to be a fucking asshole?"

I'd say the Bioshock games, though, make an admirable attempt at having Good Guy/Bad Guy endings. BS 1: Leave Rapture vs Take It Over and Become Splicer King. BS 2: Free a benevolent super powered girl who will help mankind progress to the future vs Unleash a malevolent ***** who cannot wait to to exercise her "daddy's" bloody wrath upon society.

Annnnnnnnd I'm officially starting to ramble so I'll kindly shut the fuck up now.

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?