Protagonists and morality.

[number4096]

Why is it that you always play the good guy even though for most games all you ever do is kill people right and left?Why is it so necessary that you play a goody-two-shoe?Most players will buy a game only to let off some steam by destroying everything in sight,so why in this context should it be necessary for the protagonist to be a good guy?

Even if the protagonist feels bad about it(Read:Emo.),it doesn't explain why the player insists on being the good guy and kill and destroy everything at the same time.You feel bad about having to kill stuff?Play cooking mama.You want to destroy everything?Then at least accept that a good guy is unfitting for the role and that only a villain could fit as player character.

I know there are games where you play as a villain.I just don't get why does it seems necessary most of the time to play a good guy in violent games.If there are nazis,aliens or zombies and your character is left without a choice,then why did you buyed such a game in the first place?How about playing a game where the protagonist is always happy?It would be boring of course.Question:Why exactly?

Most of the time the entire premise of a game is to kill stuff.Playing as someone who regrets doing that doesn't make sense.Especially considering the player buyed the game exactly because of all the killing.The player should at least play someone fittingly evil.And violent video games with good protagonists sell more than those with evil ones.Why?It is a violent video game.How about stopping the pretention and playing an admitted sadist?

It would be more honest if anything.If people were honest about wanting to play good guys,they would not play violent video games in the first place.

Edit:If you kill enemies because they are bad guys,then why did you buy a game with bad guys in it in the first place?Play cooking mama or tetris or something.Or admit you are evil and play a villain.

 

[AkJay]

I feel bad when I kill someone who I thought was a bad guy, but then it's one of those M. Night Shyamalan twists where I was actually being fooled by the real bad guys.

 

[Amnestic]

Spoiler: What a goody-two-shoes protagonist looks like

Spoiler: Hey, another one!

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

So you want a main character who is good, yet loves to kill things? That doesn't sound like a good guy at all.

 

[Gxas]

Even if the protagonist feels bad about it(Read:Emo)

Are you serious? Like, are you being fucking serious?

 

[number4096]

So you want a main character who is good, yet loves to kill things? That doesn't sound like a good guy at all.

I don't want to play a good guy,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when all they do in the games is kill people(Read:Gears of War.).

 

[Gigaguy64]

Spoiler: What a goody-two-shoes protagonist looks like

Spoiler: Hey, another one!

Spoiler: You also forgot this guy

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

I don't want to play a good guy,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when all they do in the games is kill people(Read:Gears of War.).

Well, technically in Gears they were killing Locust, which weren't human, and as of such would not fit under what humans call "People". It was more like killing an animal that was weilding a gun.

Feel free to try a different example, because the Locust also attacked first, meaning that it was pretty much a war, which allows me to pull out the term "War Hero", usually referred to fsomeone who did something great in a war, usually involving killing many "People."

 

[DragonsAteMyMarbles]

Ahem. <url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice>Good Is Not Nice.

 

[Amnestic]

Spoiler: What a goody-two-shoes protagonist looks like

Spoiler: Hey, another one!

Spoiler: You also forgot this guy

Not played it, sadly. I left my Wii with my mother as she gets more use out of it than me, plus there's no room for a big enough TV in my uni room. Already got my dekstop PC, a second monitor, my 360, my slim PS2 and a portable TV+DVD player on my desk. I have a small section left on one side for a pile of books.

But yeah, there are more protagonists like that. I knew I'd get a response like that.

+1 for having a lightsaber beam katana in it though.

 

[number4096]

I don't want to play a good guy,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when all they do in the games is kill people(Read:Gears of War.).

Well, technically in Gears they were killing Locust, which weren't human, and as of such would not fit under what humans call "People". It was more like killing an animal that was weilding a gun.

Feel free to try a different example, because the Locust also attacked first, meaning that it was pretty much a war, which allows me to pull out the term "War Hero", usually referred to fsomeone who did something great in a war, usually involving killing many "People."

I know they were bad guys and animals,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when the sole appeal of the game is to kill stuff.Yeah,the locusts attacked first.The question is why would players insist on being the good guys when the very reason the buyed the game was to kill stuff,an evil thing more fitting if done by a villain.

 

[Gigaguy64]

Spoiler: What a goody-two-shoes protagonist looks like

Spoiler: Hey, another one!

Spoiler: You also forgot this guy

Not played it, sadly. I left my Wii with my mother as she gets more use out of it than me, plus there's no room for a big enough TV in my uni room. Already got my dekstop PC, a second monitor, my 360, my slim PS2 and a portable TV+DVD player on my desk. I have a small section left on one side for a pile of books.

But yeah, there are more protagonists like that. I knew I'd get a response like that.

+1 for having a lightsaber beam katana in it though.

You still have more room than me...and i still live at home!

Iv only gotten to play a bit at my local Game Stop....i want it sooooo bad but....its not going to be allowed in my house.
:3

And yea, im sure we both could think of more "Goody-two-shoes Hero's" but, we need to save room for the other posters.

 

[number4096]

It is especially bad in dungeons and dragons.Evil aligned characters raid dungeons because they are evil,while good guys do the exact same thing but try to find a bunch of excuses for doing so,if they bother,and that is the only difference between both.Good guys never help orphans by raising them or giving them food,they just raid dungeons,which means killing and looting.At least bad guys fit their roles,unlike good guys.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

I don't want to play a good guy,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when all they do in the games is kill people(Read:Gears of War.).

Well, technically in Gears they were killing Locust, which weren't human, and as of such would not fit under what humans call "People". It was more like killing an animal that was weilding a gun.

Feel free to try a different example, because the Locust also attacked first, meaning that it was pretty much a war, which allows me to pull out the term "War Hero", usually referred to fsomeone who did something great in a war, usually involving killing many "People."

I know they were bad guys and animals,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when the sole appeal of the game is to kill stuff.Yeah,the locusts attacked first.The question is why would players insist on being the good guys when the very reason the buyed the game was to kill stuff,an evil thing more fitting if done by a villain.

Some times it makes the player feel better about it, sometimes the "Hero that murders mercilessly" can be better than the "Villian that murders mercilessly", and usually if the Hero wins, then -insert thing that was in peril- is saved, and thus able to be in peril again in a sequel, whereas if the villian wins, it might not work out so well.

Plus, being the Hero feels more natural, people have been playing the Hero for years. Saving the Princess, stopping the guy making rogue robots, defeating the the grand master demon. It seems more traditional.

 

[MetalDooley]

The question is why would players insist on being the good guys when the very reason the buyed the game was to kill stuff,an evil thing more fitting if done by a villain.

Well considering many games don't give you the option it's more a case of players being forced to be the good guy rather than insisting on it

 

[Jaranja]

I feel bad when I kill someone who I thought was a bad guy, but then it's one of those M. Night Shyamalan twists where I was actually being fooled by the real bad guys.

Yeah! and then your therapist turns out to be dead... oh wait.

Play Infamous and go down the infamous route.

 

[Amnestic]

It is especially bad in dungeons and dragons.Evil aligned characters raid dungeons because they are evil,while good guys do the exact same thing but try to find a bunch of excuses for doing so,if they bother,and that is the only difference between both.Good guys never help orphans by raising them or giving them food,they just raid dungeons,which means killing and looting.At least bad guys fit their roles,unlike good guys.

Wow.

What stupid arse D&D games have you been playing?

 

[JeanLuc761]

So...hang on lemme get this straight.

Protagonists who kill others in videogames are only suited for being villains, and you're basing this purely on the fact they kill people? I honestly can't make sense of that. That's like saying a soldier is a villain because he fights for his home country.

 

[number4096]

I don't want to play a good guy,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when all they do in the games is kill people(Read:Gears of War.).

Well, technically in Gears they were killing Locust, which weren't human, and as of such would not fit under what humans call "People". It was more like killing an animal that was weilding a gun.

Feel free to try a different example, because the Locust also attacked first, meaning that it was pretty much a war, which allows me to pull out the term "War Hero", usually referred to fsomeone who did something great in a war, usually involving killing many "People."

I know they were bad guys and animals,i wonder why people insist on playing good guys when the sole appeal of the game is to kill stuff.Yeah,the locusts attacked first.The question is why would players insist on being the good guys when the very reason the buyed the game was to kill stuff,an evil thing more fitting if done by a villain.

Some times it makes the player feel better about it, sometimes the "Hero that murders mercilessly" can be better than the "Villian that murders mercilessly", and usually if the Hero wins, then -insert thing that was in peril- is saved, and thus able to be in peril again in a sequel, whereas if the villian wins, it might not work out so well.

Plus, being the Hero feels more natural, people have been playing the Hero for years. Saving the Princess, stopping the guy making rogue robots, defeating the the grand master demon. It seems more traditional.

"Sometimes it makes the player fell better about it."If they fell bad about it,why don't they play cooking mama instead?To me,if you murder mercilessly,you are a villain.Why would saving something always involve destroying another?Why is it traditional to be a maddened murder-machine on crack?How about saving the world through diplomacy and sharing?Why are violent video games displaying good guys as player characters when the appeal is violence?

Imagine a bunch of nuns with chainsaws and you will understand why it baffles me.

 

[number4096]

So...hang on lemme get this straight.

Protagonists who kill others in videogames are only suited for being villains, and you're basing this purely on the fact they kill people? I honestly can't make sense of that. That's like saying a soldier is a villain because he fights for his home country.

Uh...duh?

They are soldiers,they are paid to kill people.Did you honestly believed they were good guys?