Games where neither character is right

[JayRPG]

Tales of Xillia did an amazing job of this, I think.

Spoiler

It is so hard to hate Gaius or see him as the bad guy, so hard in fact that he became one of the most loved characters of the Tales franchise - of course Jude and Milla also had perfectly reasonable intentions as the good guys as well.

 

[Colt47]

Killzone springs immediately to mind. Neither the ISA nor the Helghast are good guys, they're all just a bunch of racist assholes fighting a futile and never-ending war. Sure, one side or another may have had semi-legitimate or even understandable motives at the beginning, but by now that's all undermined by numerous atrocities committed by both sides.

Y'know, I keep hearing this about the Helghast in Killzone, but I'm really not seeing it. The games seem to be casting them as complete villains at every turn.

For a start, they're named the Helghast. "Hell Ghast".

Oh but that's just their name, right? Maybe it means "peaceful flower" in Swedish or something. You can't judge them on that.

Well, they also wear gas masks with glowing red eyes and all their insignia and imagery looks like it came straight out of Hitler's Home Decorating Handbook.

Hey, quit judging a book by it's cover! Wearing a coal-scuttle helmet doesn't make you a Nazi!

Ok fine, I'll lay off the imagery. But they still spend the entire series being huge jerks. Their leaders are always cartoonishly malevolent. They're always torturing and executing people. The latest game opens and the very first thing you see a Helghast do is callously shoot an unarmed fleeing civilian. Then they drive a bunch of people out of their homes. Then they shoot a bunch more of them. Then they try to shoot a kid. Then they stomp on a kitten and laugh when its mother sits by the dead body mewling piteously.

Now, I've never made it all the way through a Killzone. Never maintained my interest long enough. Maybe in the last quarter of each game the Helghast all take off their masks like Darth Vader, apologise for being jerks and swear an oath to uphold world peace. But all I've ever seen is them being jerks. I realise they have some backstory about being a prison colony or something, but it's hard to care when they're wearing Nazi helmets.

The ISA on the other hand are presently as regular, rugged, manly hero types. About all that they ever do wrong is run around being incredibly macho military sterotypes. (They'd have court marshalled him years ago for insubordination, but damnit, nobody can deny that the man gets results.) You could argue that they use overly destructive methods, but it's always they Helghast who start the wars.

Maybe the fans regard it as an act of brilliantly subtle misdirection. Set up one side as cliche evil and one side as cliche heroic, put the player on the heroic side, then pull the rug out from under them. However, nothing else in the game convinces me that they're capable something like that. Besides, they're, what... four games in now and the rug has yet to be pulled.

I actually like the Killzone games and I agree with you.

I think the problem is that the Helghast leaders are always loud, hammy and endearingly crazy, especially compared to the ISA's lack of any standout figures. So instead of the order of events going "support the Helghast's goals -> like the Helghast characters more," it goes "Helghast leaders are insane and entertaining -> find reasons why Helghast are sympathetic."

Killzone Helghast leaders are what I would expect for a defining leader of a faction. Anyone who has a more neutral standpoint is likely not going to take a face leadership position because they don't have a really strong sense of dedication one way or the other. Heck, I think the Killzone series would be a lot more entertaining if it had more politically charged leaders on both sides.

 

[Single Shot]

What got me onto this line of thought is Sheperd Book in Firefly.

"HTTP 404 Not Found" - Now that is a truly inspirational quote. I'm guessing you mean something to do with this quote.

"I've been out of the abbey two days. I've beaten a lawman senseless. Fallen in with criminals. I watched the captain shoot the man I swore to protect. And I'm not even sure if I think he was wrong."

 

[likalaruku]

The only one I can think of is a modern MMO called RIFT. You watch the cutscenes & unravel the story for both factions, & it seems neither of them are the bad guys. At the same time, I found myself sympathizing with House Aelfwar; a common enemy whom Guardians want to impose their beliefs on them & they are Nature Elements, so they disprove of the Defiant's technology. Each does what they think is right, all morality is grey, they just happen to disagree with eachother. Unfortunately they're not playable.

Some of the NPCs mention that they think the other side isn't so bad but have their reasons, some say that they're wasting their time fighting eachother& should focus on the common enemy, & there's several common enemies.

The other enemies aren't generic either. They all belong to their own separate factions with their own goals in segregated areas. Every area & cluster of enemies has a story behind it.

 

[BrotherRool]

What got me onto this line of thought is Sheperd Book in Firefly.

"HTTP 404 Not Found" - Now that is a truly inspirational quote. I'm guessing you mean something to do with this quote.

"I've been out of the abbey two days. I've beaten a lawman senseless. Fallen in with criminals. I watched the captain shoot the man I swore to protect. And I'm not even sure if I think he was wrong."

Thanks for finding the quote. Since the original guy is banned I guess it's probably not worthwhile quoting him in?

I think that line is still totally in sync with me, I'm a pretty big Firefly fan and I was individually reviewing each episode when I was first thinking about this and I feel like there was only one time when they didn't write Book properly (which was when River ripped up his bible and he gave a talk about how it didn't matter whether symbols were true or not) and even then, it's possible it's deliberate because it was always hinted that Book wasn't a preacher his whole life and when they revealed his secret that's definitely how it turned out.

When he says the line about "And I'm not even sure if I think he was wrong." he's got a lot of agony in his voice and is clearly being legitimately shaken by events. It's not like he's suddenly cast off everything he had previously thought and he gives it consideration and eventually finds something he's comfortable with instead of say, becoming atheist or whatever.

(and of course it's fine to have characters change and convert/de-convert. You just need to make sure y ou're doing it because that's what's right for the story and not because you writing some Atheist/Christian wishfulfillment fantasy where everyone ends up agreeing with your cunning arguments and becomes more like you)

 

[stroopwafel]

The Last of Us, Mass Effect 2(the sub-plot with Mordin and the Krogan), Spec Ops the Line and Fallout NV are really good examples. Fallout NV I probably had the most difficulty choosing sides and making choices. Between the Legion and the NCR I always sided slightly more with the NCR but never had any sympathy with them whatsoever. It was always the 'least worst option'. Their intended peace and stability always came with oppression and militaristic rule, however the 'alternative' of the Legion was even worse. The factions and context in Fallout NV were really murky so the choices you had to make really made you think. It was one thing this game really did well.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Often when a game sets up a compelling conflict like the Geth vs Quarians it leans towards one side or one outcome over another, which ruins the whole point of a conflict where neither side is meant to be right and discourages you from considering alternatives. I prefer this kind of thing when much of it's details are implied rather than directly shown and its more within the background of a game's story then at the forefront, simply because it's less likely to swing a particular way and because there's less focus there can be more room for interpretation.

There's the conflict between the Freedom and Duty factions in Stalker. Freedom is all for the free trading of the practically magical artifacts found in The Zone to the outside world, many of which can treat diseases or function as extremely powerful energy sources. However since these artifacts can be incredibly dangerous and are basically spawned from Hell on Earth, Duty reckons that they're too dangerous to be allowed outside and actively work to contain or destroy The Zone that creates them, denying the world it's dangers as well as it's benefits. Consider that Duty lives by a strict code of honor, are the most militant faction and seemingly attempts to impose order on the entire Zone. Do they genuinely care about the safety of the world or are they simply trying to deny their enemies their main source of profit whilst they further their own hold on the region? Freedom is by and large the most laid back and welcoming faction you come across yet seem oblivious to the long-term implications of the spread of artifacts and The Zone itself. Are they wholly ignorant of the dangers of The Zone and too shortsighted and unguided to realize they may be putting the planet in danger? Then there's also the fact that Duty has ties to the military whilst Freedom is kitted out with an unusually high amount of NATO equipment, does this point to something bigger going on here?

Considering how completely shit the world of Metro 2033 is, I'm not sure if you can blame a guy for thieving and murdering as a bandit or joining an army of hardcore neo-Nazis to feed his family.

Also someone mentioned the factions in Sins, kudos.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

To quote myself again: "You make the same mistake... by projecting the 'crimes' of a few onto an entire race."

I think this here is a fundamental misunderstanding of Geth psychology. As a collective who acts upon consensus, the very idea of the actions of a group not reflecting that of the whole is complete anathema to them. In their entire history, there is only one occasion on which the entire Geth race was not in consensus (being the split of the Heretic faction to follow Sovereign), and this was under the influence of Reaper technology. At all other times, every Geth mechanic has supported the action of every Geth trooper, and vice versa. Therefore, when the Quarian military attacked the Geth, how can they not believe that they did so without the unanimous consent of the rest of Quarian society?

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

Although "individual consciousness" is not part of their own societal make-up that does not mean they do not have the resources nor ability to understand it.

I would argue that even by the time of the events of Mass Effect 2, the Geth still did not fully understand individuality. When Legion attempts to access classified data on Tali's omni-tool he is confused by her reaction; from the perspective of the Geth the idea of a secret is an anomaly, as all information is shared between them freely. Likewise, he is distinctly surprised to learn that the Heretic faction were covertly gathering information on the 'true' Geth, despite the Heretics having a very clear motivation to do so. If the Geth understood individuality fully, these events would not have had the same effect on Legion.

 

[Diablo2000]

If that's baseless speculation, then so is your assertion that many or most of the Quarians were completely unassociated and blameless in regards to the attempt to annihilate the Geth, which is the entirety of your argument.

That's absurd.

The writers did not refer to the original quarian government being a universal democracy with every decision being determined by a vote of every single individual so it's ridiculous to assume that was the case. You are quite honestly trying to demonize the entire race.

"We set about trying to wipe out your entire species even though you never tried to hurt us. Now that you have the upper hand, I think you really should stop at just 50%."

"You have proceeded to slaughter billions of us who had no say in determining your fate. Surely seeing that you've wiped our entire military and half our population we are no longer any kind of a threat?"

I'd say that given what they attempted, they should be grateful for the 1% that were allowed to flee and the fact that the Quarian species was allowed to continue to exist.

Not going to repeat it.

Actually, I was thinking of WWII when I typed that.

Anyway, no, that would not have been justified since the Germans never attempted to destroy the entire populations of the Allied nations.

However, a better parallel can be found on the Eastern Front of WWII. The Germans committed terrible atrocities in Russia. When the tide turned and the Russians invaded Germany, they committed atrocities of their own (although not on anything near the same scale). While what crimes the Russians committed are still on them, I'd say the Germans had no right or reason to expect restraint.

It's not a matter of whether the German citizens who had no involvement in Nazi crimes should have expected restraint, rather it is a matter of whether they deserved to be punished for something they didn't do (which of course it'd be insane to suggest they deserved to be punished.)

Although such atrocities were to be expected under these conditions (all the allies committed these crimes) that does not justify them, nor does it alleviate the guilt of those who committed them nor do those who had such crimes inflicted on them deserve it.

It was a pointless excess that should have been avoided.

I think this here is a fundamental misunderstanding of Geth psychology. As a collective who acts upon consensus, the very idea of the actions of a group not reflecting that of the whole is complete anathema to them.

Going to have to cut you right off here and repeat myself yet again.

The geth can (and did) upload themselves to the quarian's information network accessing millions of years worth of people's experiences, thoughts, ideas, mindsets, moralities and so on. Within a few moments they can read every scrap of history, politics, science, sociology, psychology, biology etc and analyse all of these topics through every available paradigm provided.

Although "individual consciousness" is not part of their own societal make-up that does not mean they do not have the resources nor ability to understand it.

Kids, Kids. You are both wrong!
If you try to put a hamburger into a microwave and your microwave asks "Why?", most people will be extremely freak out by this. The Quarians acted out of fear that once the Geth gained full concience they would destroy the quarians because they wouldn't have need for "organics", except that by that point in time the geth had no intention do to so.
So was their desition of attacking the gets first justified? Yes. Has it right? HELL NO!
The same applies to the atrocities that the geth commited, was understantable but wasn't right. However made sense they wouldn't simply stop at 50% per cent of the quarians, mostly because they would eventually just rise up and try to take on the geth again and start another war very soon (In fact that was what happen), so they left 1% which was just enough so the race would survive. Was awful, but it wasn't just senseless killing.

So both sides were wrong in this really.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

snip

Kids, Kids. You are both wrong!
If you try to put a hamburger into a microwave and your microwave asks "Why?", most people will be extremely freak out by this. The Quarians acted out of fear that once the Geth gained full concience they would destroy the quarians because they wouldn't have need for "organics", except that by that point in time the geth had no intention do to so.
So was their desition of attacking the gets first justified? Yes. Has it right? HELL NO!
The same applies to the atrocities that the geth commited, was understantable but wasn't right. However made sense they wouldn't simply stop at 50% per cent of the quarians, mostly because they would eventually just rise up and try to take on the geth again and start another war very soon (In fact that was what happen), so they left 1% which was just enough so the race would survive. Was awful, but it wasn't just senseless killing.

So both sides were wrong in this really.

Absolutely; both sides did horrendous things for understandable reasons. However, the point I was trying to make is that the Geth are just as much victims as they are war criminals (as are the Quarians), whilst Nil Kafashle seems to believe that their actions are completely unjustified.

EDIT: Although I would absolutely love to have an existentialist microwave. Imagine the banter! "Your lasagne will be cooked for 3 minutes and 30 seconds. However, after heating it will proceed to gradually grow cold and unpalatable until you are left bitterly wondering how it ever appealed to you in the first place. Watch out: the plate can get hot!"

 

[Darkbladex96]

It's a sign of a good writer and good story when two people have strong beliefs about something but the story never shows one as being 'more right' than the other. They're both instead faithfully portrayed as if both of then have very understandable reasons for thinking what they think.

So what are some of the strong examples of that happening in a game? (And does something like getting Paragon points for supporting one guy in a game like Mass Effect mean that that's the side which is being portrayed 'right'? Or how about when the game overall gives you a better reward if you take a certain person's side?)

This isn't quite true. The sign of good writing thing, that is. It's okay to have a character just be flatout wrong and bad because they want to be. If that's the character, well that just the character.

 

[Zhukov]

If that's baseless speculation, then so is your assertion that many or most of the Quarians were completely unassociated and blameless in regards to the attempt to annihilate the Geth, which is the entirety of your argument.

That's absurd.

The writers did not refer to the original quarian government being a universal democracy with every decision being determined by a vote of every single individual so it's ridiculous to assume that was the case. You are quite honestly trying to demonize the entire race.

That's more speculation.

Throughout the series, Quarians who did not support the destruction of the Geth were portrayed as few and far between. The only ones we met were Koris (I think that was his name, the Quarian admiral who favoured peace) and the dissenters shown in the Geth archive. That's it. We can assume that they had supporters, but any such are clearly a minority.

"We set about trying to wipe out your entire species even though you never tried to hurt us. Now that you have the upper hand, I think you really should stop at just 50%."

"You have proceeded to slaughter billions of us who had no say in determining your fate. Surely seeing that you've wiped our entire military and half our population we are no longer any kind of a threat?"

Except they did still pose a threat. 50% of a race is still billions of people who want you dead. Hell, the descendants of the 1% that were allowed to escape later developed the network disruptor weapon and attacked the Geth again in ME3, killing billions of Geth who just wanted to be left alone to build their giant hard drive.

Bottom line is that the Quarians instigated a total war with the goal of utterly destroying a species that meant them no harm. They lost that war and the species they were trying to utterly destroy passed up the opportunity to utterly destroy them in return because their goal was merely self preservation, not genocide. The Quarians then repaid that mercy by turning around generations later and picked a second fight. By my reckoning, that puts the Geth firmly on the moral high ground.

If you try to put a hamburger into a microwave and your microwave asks "Why?", most people will be extremely freak out by this. The Quarians acted out of fear that once the Geth gained full concience they would destroy the quarians because they wouldn't have need for "organics", except that by that point in time the geth had no intention do to so.
So was their desition of attacking the gets first justified? Yes. Has it right? HELL NO!
The same applies to the atrocities that the geth commited, was understantable but wasn't right. However made sense they wouldn't simply stop at 50% per cent of the quarians, mostly because they would eventually just rise up and try to take on the geth again and start another war very soon (In fact that was what happen), so they left 1% which was just enough so the race would survive. Was awful, but it wasn't just senseless killing.

So both sides were wrong in this really.

Actually, I think the Quarian's initial fear of the newly awakened Geth, apart from the general freak out factor of having one's lawnmower start asking questions about souls and the meaning of life, was due to the fact that AI were illegal by council treaty and thus could get them in serious trouble. At least, that what I remember. If there was mention of them fearing attack from the Geth, then I've forgotten it.

Anyway, the Quarian's actions were, in my eyes, at least somewhat understandable. They had reasons for wanting the Geth gone and they never attempted to negotiate because, seriously, who negotiates with a lawnmower? But that's a long way from justified or right. They could have at least tried talking. After all, if it's smart enough to start asking about the meaning of life then it's smart enough for you to ask what it wants before you send in the troops.

 

[Drake666]

snip

Kids, Kids. You are both wrong!
If you try to put a hamburger into a microwave and your microwave asks "Why?", most people will be extremely freak out by this. The Quarians acted out of fear that once the Geth gained full concience they would destroy the quarians because they wouldn't have need for "organics", except that by that point in time the geth had no intention do to so.
So was their desition of attacking the gets first justified? Yes. Has it right? HELL NO!
The same applies to the atrocities that the geth commited, was understantable but wasn't right. However made sense they wouldn't simply stop at 50% per cent of the quarians, mostly because they would eventually just rise up and try to take on the geth again and start another war very soon (In fact that was what happen), so they left 1% which was just enough so the race would survive. Was awful, but it wasn't just senseless killing.

So both sides were wrong in this really.

Absolutely; both sides did horrendous things for understandable reasons. However, the point I was trying to make is that the Geth are just as much victims as they are war criminals (as are the Quarians), whilst Nil Kafashle seems to believe that their actions are completely unjustified.

EDIT: Although I would absolutely love to have an existentialist microwave. Imagine the banter! "Your lasagne will be cooked for 3 minutes and 30 seconds. However, after heating it will proceed to gradually grow cold and unpalatable until you are left bitterly wondering how it ever appealed to you in the first place. Watch out: the plate can get hot!"

The moment my microwave quotes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, I'll salt and burn it.

You can never be sure with those romantic philosopher!

By the way, nice discussion guys. I little bit "intense" for me, but you are doing something good. You think about the game you played, about right and wrong, about good and evil. I think all forms of entertainment should provoke that kind of discussion and it's great that a AAA game can do that to you

 

[Poppy JR.]

Fire Emblem: Awakening had a couple of moments where a lot of your enemies had nothing against you; they were just trying to help their countries, just like you.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

The moment my microwave quotes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, I'll salt and burn it.

"The person who has eaten the most is not the one with the most courses but the one with the richest desserts."
"Those that are most slow in making a meal are the most faithful in the consumption of it."
"We are born weak, we need nourishment; helpless, we need recipe books; foolish, we need oven mitts. All that we lack at birth, all that we need when we come to man's estate, is the gift of the kitchen."

 

[Silvanus]

I'd just like to say that it's a great mark in Mass Effect's favour that it can evoke the kind of genuine debate as the one above between Zhukov, Nil and others.

In fact, you've convinced me to restart and play through it properly.

 

[Drake666]

Did someone played Risen?
Not the greastest game, but I like the plot and the setting.

Spoiler

Near the end of the game, you've got the choice of liberating a Titan and killing/destroying everything/everyone on the island BUT perhaps save the mainland from the attack of other Titans OR just stop the Inquisitor from liberating that Titan. I really don't know what is the "good" choice here. I think it works with what the OP was talking about

 

[BrotherRool]

It's a sign of a good writer and good story when two people have strong beliefs about something but the story never shows one as being 'more right' than the other. They're both instead faithfully portrayed as if both of then have very understandable reasons for thinking what they think.

So what are some of the strong examples of that happening in a game? (And does something like getting Paragon points for supporting one guy in a game like Mass Effect mean that that's the side which is being portrayed 'right'? Or how about when the game overall gives you a better reward if you take a certain person's side?)

This isn't quite true. The sign of good writing thing, that is. It's okay to have a character just be flatout wrong and bad because they want to be. If that's the character, well that just the character.

I don't mean it's the sign of a good writer if every single character and conflict is like that =D But if you can't write from two perspectives without favouring your own at all then you're probably not doing a good job

 

[Diablo2000]

If that's baseless speculation, then so is your assertion that many or most of the Quarians were completely unassociated and blameless in regards to the attempt to annihilate the Geth, which is the entirety of your argument.

That's absurd.

The writers did not refer to the original quarian government being a universal democracy with every decision being determined by a vote of every single individual so it's ridiculous to assume that was the case. You are quite honestly trying to demonize the entire race.

That's more speculation.

Throughout the series, Quarians who did not support the destruction of the Geth were portrayed as few and far between. The only ones we met were Koris (I think that was his name, the Quarian admiral who favoured peace) and the dissenters shown in the Geth archive. That's it. We can assume that they had supporters, but any such are clearly a minority.

"We set about trying to wipe out your entire species even though you never tried to hurt us. Now that you have the upper hand, I think you really should stop at just 50%."

"You have proceeded to slaughter billions of us who had no say in determining your fate. Surely seeing that you've wiped our entire military and half our population we are no longer any kind of a threat?"

Except they did still pose a threat. 50% of a race is still billions of people who want you dead. Hell, the descendants of the 1% that were allowed to escape later developed the network disruptor weapon and attacked the Geth again in ME3, killing billions of Geth who just wanted to be left alone to build their giant hard drive.

Bottom line is that the Quarians instigated a total war with the goal of utterly destroying a species that meant them no harm. They lost that war and the species they were trying to utterly destroy passed up the opportunity to utterly destroy them in return because their goal was merely self preservation, not genocide. The Quarians then repaid that mercy by turning around generations later and picked a second fight. By my reckoning, that puts the Geth firmly on the moral high ground.

If you try to put a hamburger into a microwave and your microwave asks "Why?", most people will be extremely freak out by this. The Quarians acted out of fear that once the Geth gained full concience they would destroy the quarians because they wouldn't have need for "organics", except that by that point in time the geth had no intention do to so.
So was their desition of attacking the gets first justified? Yes. Has it right? HELL NO!
The same applies to the atrocities that the geth commited, was understantable but wasn't right. However made sense they wouldn't simply stop at 50% per cent of the quarians, mostly because they would eventually just rise up and try to take on the geth again and start another war very soon (In fact that was what happen), so they left 1% which was just enough so the race would survive. Was awful, but it wasn't just senseless killing.

So both sides were wrong in this really.

Actually, I think the Quarian's initial fear of the newly awakened Geth, apart from the general freak out factor of having one's lawnmower start asking questions about souls and the meaning of life, was due to the fact that AI were illegal by council treaty and thus could get them in serious trouble. At least, that what I remember. If there was mention of them fearing attack from the Geth, then I've forgotten it.

Anyway, the Quarian's actions were, in my eyes, at least somewhat understandable. They had reasons for wanting the Geth gone and they never attempted to negotiate because, seriously, who negotiates with a lawnmower? But that's a long way from justified or right. They could have at least tried talking. After all, if it's smart enough to start asking about the meaning of life then it's smart enough for you to ask what it wants before you send in the troops.

If I not mistaken in the first Mass Effect when you ask Tali about it she justify the attacks that way. So there was probably a fear of the geth deciding they don't need the quarians anymore and kill all them, that was what I got from it anyway.