Leave both factions to their wars, attacking them dressed as their enemies in order to get supplies for my own faction and raise tension between them, then after their big fight kill the weakened surviving faction, ruling fairly. No innocents killed, no dictatorship.
Poll: A game with no right...
- Thread starter BiscuitTrouser
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think I'd try to play as the Dark knight's Joker, if possible.
Otherwise, being a psycho gestapo like officer could be fun.
Nice idea, by the way.
Otherwise, being a psycho gestapo like officer could be fun.
Nice idea, by the way.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
I'd support the police, as if they are both entirely moraless (children as suicide bombers? Could they be any more evil?) then I might as well support the ones who already have a working regime, any takeover would damage the economy and cause pointless death for no reason...
I was going to say that, but in retrospect......the Legion really is evil. Sure the NCR is a bureaucratic shit system. But the legion is just Evil. That's really where it falls short for me.Vault101 said:
OT: In a sense, the upcoming game Brink is supposed to have a setting like that, OP. Anarchist, Terrorist Rebels fighting an Oppressive, Xenophobic Crackdown military. And since even the Singleplayer campaign is very co-op/MP focused, both sides are equally represented as you can play through both perspectives in the SP story, so look forward to that?
The problem with the OP is he presents both as wrong. You aren't given any moral ambiguity if you have no sympathy with either side - ignoring the necessity of identifiable characters.
And the response are evidence for this: A lot of people speak about messing with the game, creating their own character, and that's because you've phrased your concept around 'no right'.
Your concept would work better if both were right.
And the response are evidence for this: A lot of people speak about messing with the game, creating their own character, and that's because you've phrased your concept around 'no right'.
Your concept would work better if both were right.
I know that Fallout NV wasn't the best game ever, but i find atleast some similarities with this game you're describing.
You have the choice to join the NCR, slightly corrupt but they are atleast trying to re-establish some kind of law.
The Caesars Legion, that would be your rebels. A bunch of people led by Caesar that are abit over the edge, and would do anything to piss off the NCR.
You can also choose to screw them both by taking over the land yourself.
I know this isn't exactly what you requested but still, I think Bethesda are not far away and my guess is that we will see more of these games with a huge amount of decisions and different allies in the next couple of years.
You have the choice to join the NCR, slightly corrupt but they are atleast trying to re-establish some kind of law.
The Caesars Legion, that would be your rebels. A bunch of people led by Caesar that are abit over the edge, and would do anything to piss off the NCR.
You can also choose to screw them both by taking over the land yourself.
I know this isn't exactly what you requested but still, I think Bethesda are not far away and my guess is that we will see more of these games with a huge amount of decisions and different allies in the next couple of years.
The Police. The Rebels, if they're willing to go that far to defeat the government, then they'll probablly end up just as oppressive. I'd rather do without the mass guerilla warfare, the slaughter of innocents and terrorism on a massive scale, all to just end up the same, just with a new leader. Order, although hard and unjust, is the key. In the end, the Police and government, are the "best" option for the good of the people.
Yes I do agree the legion are a bunch of bastards (and I have been almost shocked that some people honestly think its a good idea)but I think somtimes having an enemy you can't hate is a little toughGrizzlerBorno said:
and thats not entirely a bad thing, they are evil but from the short interaction with ceasar himself they are somwhat well thourght out and kinda belivible evil also you probably could twist the logic around to actually belive they are in the right...and theres nothing more staisfying than killing those bastards, though I do feel sorry for some of them, pretty much bred and brutalized into become legion its not liek they had a choice, they are just as much slaves as the women
the good thing is that you can be an evil bastard and join them, and it dosnt seem like "evil for the sake of evil", as in fallout 3 regardless of how evil you are you are forced to go along with the brotherhood
Your five squaddies, they take bullets for you. Love you like a brother. Tell you about their lives. Honestly want a better world to live in. They just think anything is with paying to achieve it. They want to be good people.Trolldor said:
Another idea, and probably far more engaging, would be to make a game where both sides could be considered right.
To take your scenario, The Government would be ruthless sure, but only against those who spoke out, of you went along with them, if you were docile, you would receive top tier health support and a safe, fulfilling life.
The Resistance would be fighting for the right to complete intellectual freedom at the cost of all the comforts of this society.
So both sides are doing what they think is best for the people and are both willing to do terrible things to keep it going.
This would be an interesting take because no matter which side you are on, it could present multiple stages where you could switch sides, to fight for the others cause. And no matter who you fight for, the people you are killing aren't just cold murderous bastards but actual people who think they are doing the right thing.
To take your scenario, The Government would be ruthless sure, but only against those who spoke out, of you went along with them, if you were docile, you would receive top tier health support and a safe, fulfilling life.
The Resistance would be fighting for the right to complete intellectual freedom at the cost of all the comforts of this society.
So both sides are doing what they think is best for the people and are both willing to do terrible things to keep it going.
This would be an interesting take because no matter which side you are on, it could present multiple stages where you could switch sides, to fight for the others cause. And no matter who you fight for, the people you are killing aren't just cold murderous bastards but actual people who think they are doing the right thing.
BiscuitTrouser said:
I like the idea of a very difficult moral choice system, one that's very grey. But having it all two equal evils just means "Fuck around, you can't do good at all, why bother?", in my opinion.
I'd love to see a game with morally ambiguous choices. But if they all end up with "Side A or Side B, both are evil fucks anyways". Your idea sounds interesting as hell. But how about 2 factions warring over the only fertile land left. There isn't enough for both factions, and both factions have a long standing feud with each other. Hatred runs deep, and there are very good reasons for both sides to hate each other. They have a long series of evils that they've done to each other, among other things. (I'm making this up as I go along, so I apologise, but use your imagination
)Anyways, you pick a faction. And you have to fight on one side. You can double cross, double double cross, etc, as you see fit. If you double cross too often, both sides will come to hate you, of course. But, you can also use deceit, etc. So, you're told to kill some guys, and they're trying to protect some kids... You cause a building to explode, claim you killed them. Technically good, but later you find out said guy is training kids to be suicide bombers. So, at the time the choice seemed good, but the guy was an evil cockmonger. Riddle the game with all sorts of situations like this, where something can SEEM like a good choice, but it might or might not be. Have a shitton of secrets, and at least ONE way to have a semi-good ending where things turn out decently good. There are ways to make a morally ambiguous game more interesting than "Make lots of choices that all lead to absolute destruction".
Neither side is technically EVIL. Nor are they GOOD. They just ARE. In the scenario you painted, both are obviously evil, which kinda means you're picking the lesser of two evils, rather than one faction over another.
I actually really liked Aion for how they set up their two factions. Some crazy shit happened in the past, one faction evolved enveloped in light, and think they're better than everyone else, and think that their leader who died was right to opt for peace. The other faction evolved in darkness, believing their leader attempted to save their whole race from slaughter at the hands of an enemy who could not be trusted to ever keep a peace treaty. Both sides have great reason to hate each other, and they had years apart to nurture that hatred and blame each other for everything that was wrong with their lives, and the destruction of their world. Oh, and there's some resource or other that's limited or something, so they have to try to kill each other so they can live or something. I think it would've been perfect without that last part about the resources.
Of course, that's about all that I liked about their storytelling, aside from that, it really got old fast.
captainaweshum said:
Read the edited version people. REAAAAD IIIITRetosa said:
Thats what it is lol. Read my revised post, i made it this because i thought this was better after i wrote it. Good idea though. Its about escalation. The Rebels started being more ruthless, the government went with them. Then it escalated. Now its atrocity after atrocity just to keep up.
I like your idea better than the OP's, just figured I'd point that out. Something to keep the game morally ambiguous, but more fun and interesting than leading everything into absolute death and destruction. What he had wasn't really morally ambiguous except in the short term. (I have to kill these children to kill the guy I'm supposed to kill. Or I can let them go.) Except in the long term, it's not morally ambiguous.captainaweshum said:
You squaddies, while your friends, HATE this war. They want it to end and they are certain the oly way to do it is to follow orders s ruthlessly as possible to end it as fast as they can. Disobay orders or let someone go? They are gonna be pissed, or just do the killings without you. The only way to stop it is to kill your friends. The ones who would die for you.Retosa said:
The only way to play a game like this would be to play it like a complete sociopath, not caring about causes and morals and only concerned with which side has more to offer you through victory. In which case I'd rather be a leader of the revolution than just a government soldier.
(Of course you could just play through the game twice, one for each faction)
(Of course you could just play through the game twice, one for each faction)
Or which side you think will restore the most order. Both are not assholes. They are both caught in escalation, they both want the best for their people. And are both convinced anything is worth doing to achieve it. Its about which one you feel is more in thr right, or really cares about the people the most.NinjaDeathSlap said:
A very interesting idea, though in order for it to work, to really captivate the player, I think it has to be slightly less negative. Not everything you do should be solely and unambiguously bad, in my opinion. If you really want the player to care, you should allow him to do things that will improve the game world, but always at a price. Whenever you do good, someone will suffer for it, and not just your opponents. A real life example can be found in the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in WWII. He was actively helping the organization of the Endlƶsung, so it's fair to say that the assassins had sound moral grounds on which to base their actions. But it resulted in the mass killings of hundreds of innocent Czechs. Now, the assassins in question probably didn't realise the Nazi's were going to react so cruelly, but imagine that they did expect it. What would be the right thing to do? If you had the chance to strike at such an important part of an oppressive and violent machine, would it be your duty to do so regardless of the consequences? Or would you be morally bound to avoid the slaughter of innocents at all costs?
The player should get some (in his eyes, good) goal to work for, but it would be his decision at what cost.
The player should get some (in his eyes, good) goal to work for, but it would be his decision at what cost.
Yeah, thats the feel im aiming for. Everything at a cost. it either costs you your humanity. or an innocent. Or someone. The ultimate question is - is it worth it for this greater good in the future? Will it ever be worth it?TheNarrator said: