The Evil Option

[Vitagen]

GREAT THOUGHT, I MYSELF HAVE NOT PLAYED THAT STRATEGY.

*EDIT* I am going to murder my co-workers, although I should probably lock my computer while I'm off fetching lunch.

**EDIT** OK, now I'm back. I've guilted myself into saying something (vaguely) meaningful on the subject, since the post is here anyway.

I suppose there's always the classic penance version of evil that Yahtzee mentions periodically, that being "more power now, with consequences later." A simple way of writing such evil would be having evil options give the player significantly more power in the short run, but make the game significantly harder near the end.

In the sort of situations you're talking about, I think the problem lies with what designers "want" the player to do, fleshing out the "right" option (usually the "good" one), leaving the "wrong" (see: evil) option to be, well, constrained.

On a slightly related note, I would also like to see more moral ambiguity in video games, situations where the player is left wondering "Did I do the right thing?" An example would be "The Pitt" DLC from Fallout 3.

 

[Unsilenced]

You know what? Fuck "good" and "evil".

Imagine this: You're playing a game where your in a wasteland, and there's a small girl who has been sunburned to the point of a very serious cancer and may die without treatment, but is in extreme pain.

Do you kill her, or do you try to get her to a hospital? If you kill her, her suffering ends. If you attempt to get her to a hostpital, she'll be put in extreme care and maybe even life, but she'll suffer much longer and much more painfully, and if the surgeory fails, she'll have died with even more suffering.

That's what a morality choice should be like. Not, kill the person and loot their house, or not kill the person and give them a pie. And them maybe marry them, and steal their possesions anyways.

The Walking Dead game had a choice like that. I gave the girl the gun.

It's interesting to see moral choices that ask you what your values system is instead of just whether or not you have values at all.

One point I believe you're missing (that a lot of gamers miss) is this:

You don't have to be entirely good/evil.

Yes, early games with morality systems did have additional benefits to either one and generally discouraged neutrality (I'm looking at you, KoTOR II). And there are still games made today that use that same polar system, which sucks.

But there are other games that have tried other methods of measuring morality that allow for more shades of grey. I'll list the top three of the ones I've played, from 3rd to 1st.

[Hail snipis]

As for Fallout 3, I don't believe there's any benefit to its morality rating other than achievements and the radio referring to you by different titles. And come to think of it, there's at least one Perk that requires you to remain neutral in order to gain its benefits.

So here's my point: You don't have to worry yourself about being all good or all evil. Instead, try inventing a person and figure out what decisions they'd make in particular contexts. It's best if you don't plan those decisions in advance, either.

That's the thing though. I don't set out thinking "I'll be a goody two-shoes today." It's just that in most games I end up that way because evil options are usually just downright stupid. Even Mass Effect makes it so that Renegade options leave you with less at the end in most situations. Playing a logical, rational character almost always means being good, because evil options are usually dumb. In Mass Effect at least I had a few renegade points (fuck that *****-ass reporter,) but most of the time it was just a choice between A) get the job done and help people or B) HERP DERP ME LIKEY BE DICKHOLE!

Even when playing a rutheless son of a *****, the game records my actions as good because I'm not playing a dumbass and thus refuse to be a dick when it is not necessary. If being a dick were sometimes necessary, or at least rewarding, karma systems would be much more involving.