Fun Stuff > CLIKC

On Good and Evil in videogaming

<< < (2/4) > >>

Alex C:
I think a large part of the issue is the simple fact that it's hard to accomodate two different mindsets within the same game without a huge and carefully written script (or, lacking that, a lack of direction in general). For example, Planescape: Torment was a game you could be a complete dick in and still have things make sense. The quest involved was a largely personal one and being evil could even make sense within the greater context of the Nameless One's backstory; if anything, being virtuous was an anomaly for the character, not self-interest. Again, it comes down to a matter of motivation for me; if you're only going on some quest to save the kingdom/galaxy/whatever because it seems like the nice thing to do, why is your character such an asshole the rest of the time? Planescape sidesteps this issue by letting you be in it for yourself if you so choose.

Brian Clevinger of 8-Bit Theater has apparently been pondering this subject as well lately, and rightly points out that part of the reason being a bad guy in Fable 1&2 works out OK is due to the lack of dialogue. Since you never have to explain your motivations to anyone the cognitive dissonance is greatly reduced simply because there is no way to be judge your PC by anything but his actions.

Dimmukane:
I think that games where the player has almost no dialogue just fare better in the morality game, because, like Alex said, there is only the actions of the player to go on.  But on top of that, there are the games which do or do not have a story that automatically makes you a hero.  Take Mass Effect: you're saving the galaxy, but ruining everyone else along the way.  You're being the cuntiest hero ever, but you're still a hero, because you're trying to save the universe.  Or take (again) Grand Theft Auto 4: Niko is given the freedom to be a total asshole, but the scripted story sequences show him as a definitive hero, albeit conflicted.  Then you take games like Bioshock and Fable, and to an extent, Fallout 3 (I think morality had a sizeable impact, at the least): Bioshock; you're trying to find out what happened to Rapture and how to leave, and your moral choice is simple.  Fable, you're trying to get/not get revenge on dubious characters, but there's no player dialogue, only player agreement and actions.  You can get evil revenge or good revenge, or let the guy go but still rule with an iron fist, etc.  Fallout 3, you're trying to find your Dad (I haven't finished this yet), the only moral absolute that the game forces on you is that you loved your mother and father.  Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer (IMO one of the finest written dialogue-heavy games), you're trying to do something about a presence inside of you.  You can get rid of it, or keep it and abuse it's power.

Johnny C:
A good study in actual evil in games is Overlord, from what I understand. I played it at a friend's house and to do things which are the truest evil is actually really fucking hard. You have to genuinely think outside the box.

I ought to get that game for myself.

snalin:
Overlord were good, but not in the choice area. And you were an evil overlord, yes, but you were (for the first part of the game I played through before my graphics card said "bye") fighting badder guys.

From the beginning it looked like the evil choices gave worse rewards than the good ones (100 normal life power thingies or the town loving you? I mean, the life thingies is just two slaugther runs through the sheep pens, and there you are), but there was some evil system where you got more evil energy or something the more evil stuff you did.

It's a good game, but I wanted to kill cute elves and righteous monks, dwarves drinking mead and mining and stuff. I mean, everyone was badguys! The elves Emo, the halflings were following this big, bad fat monster.

It was one of the better games when it comes to choice. But you know, there's still a way to go.

axerton:
I think one of the best games where the good and evil story line co-exist is, for all it's other faults, kotor 2. Through the backstory you can see obvious reasons for being on both sides "I am a noble a virtuous Jedi, completely incorruptible, and the sith must be stopped, and I'll probably need help with that" or "Hey those bastards cast me out and cut me off from the force time to make them fellate my lightsaber" And up until the point where you're forced to make a choice between sides (quite early in the game, another good thing) you follow a neutral path - this is where many games make their mistake, the character is forced to play as a good guy then is given the choice to swap sides, as opposed to following a neutral path and being given a choice to go either way.

One thing I'd like to see in the future of choice in games is choice that isn't between good or evil and isn't even based on moral choices. For instance why not a game that depending on your choice of words or actions you could change peoples opinions about you, similar to the influence system kotor 2 had over your party members, but have it actually affecting the outcome of the game.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page