237 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

Before getting into the mechanical reasons of why they fail, the concept of a morality system in of itself is a flaw. The fun of being bad in a video game is when you aren't supposed to do it.

For example, in the first Crazy Taxi, you weren't supposed to ignore the goal of the mission and instead drive on the sidewalks into pedestrians. That's what made it fun to do. That's what made a really unspectacular game enjoyable for a few hours. GTA does this well too. In those games, you're never told to pick up a hooker, have sex with her, then kill her to get your money back. You're never even told that you can. You can just do it, and it's entertaining because its so goddamn malicious.

Having the game spell out "You have two options: Let the woman go peacefully or kill her to get your money back" sucks the fun out of the situation. If the game tells you that it's an option then you're no longer breaking the rules, you're just doing what the game tells you to do.

But although GTA handles being bad well, there's no system of morality. You play a bad guy no matter what your trivial machinations in the game are.

As for the good/evil dichotomy, the best evil characters are rarely outwardly evil. I hate when a game gives me two options, like "Give a flower to the woman OR steal candy from a baby", and then bases my character's morality on my choice.

I can explain it better this way: Palpatine didn't become the evil emperor of the galaxy by burning kittens and blowing up buses full of nuns. He did it by pretending to be a good guy. He did good things to convince everyone he's a good guy, then he did bad stuff. My favorite game of all time is KotOR, and even that game handles this really poorly. I'll try to explain how in the least spoilery way possible. I don't think its a secret that there's a point in the game where you can choose to be a Sith and betray your friends. The problem with it is that you don't have the option to keep it a secret from anyone. You can't convince your friends that you're a good person, have them help you take down the Sith Lord, and then betray them. No, you have to declare in no uncertain terms to everyone that you're an evil bastard and that you got a lightsaber for anyone who has a problem with it.

Now I don't envy the writer who has to figure out how to come up with a "Good/Evil/Evil-but-outwardly-Good" morality system, but the right way to do things ain't always the easy way. All I'm saying is that the friendship/rivalry system in DA2 didn't really work, because an evil person would manipulate his friends into liking them while secretly doing his own thing. Wasn't possible in DA2 or Origins.

Lastly, being evil should be easier and have rewards greater than being good. If the rewards for being a good person are equal (or better) than being a bad person, why be bad? After all, isn't the reason people do bad things in life to get ahead? If Kim Jong Un could have a decadent life of fame and (forced) love without subjugating his citizens to starvation, he probably would. But he can't, which is why he (and the old guard who really run the country) allow bad things to continue happening in North Korea.

Why should video games ignore this? Being good shouldn't have equal reward for being bad, because being good, at its heart, means to be selfless. Being evil, at its heart, is to be selfish. If you know you can expect to get the same or greater reward for doing good acts as you can for doing evil acts, are you really being good? The only reason to be evil in such a situation is just to get some jollies, or just what you do in your second playthrough just to see the rest of a game's content. What I'm getting at is that in games there's rarely any temptation to be evil other than for some sick pleasure. You want that awesome-looking sword in the shop, but it's a couple hundred gold outside your price range. In your travels though you have the opportunity to rob a merchant blind, which would give you enough to buy the sword. You, the player, might justify robbing the guy because you will use the sword to better kill darkspawn or whatever, but in your heart you would always know it was wrong. That's how easily a game can evoke strong emotional responses if done right.

 

Anyway, to sum up,

 

1. Being evil is more fun when the game doesn't tell you that being evil is an option

2. Evil people usually don't let on that they're bad until they have what they want

3. Being evil should yeild greater material reward than being good

 

I'm watching DA:I news like a hawk but I havent seen much on how morality plays into the game. All I hope is that there's a much bigger range of endings that depend on our choices.

[LightningPoodle]

The only game that comes to mind where picking an evil choice was fun is in the Fable series, more so Fable 2. Probably because it gave you devil horns.

[batlin]

The only game that comes to mind where picking an evil choice was fun is in the Fable series, more so Fable 2. Probably because it gave you devil horns.

Oh jesus, the Fable series was the worst when it came to morality. Not only did it present to you cartoonishly demonic moral choices, it did so with so much glee that it may as well have spelled out to you "Look at this bad thing you could do! Ho boy, wouldn't it be so funny if you did this bad thing???"

 

See my first point for an explanation of why this was a terrible approach.

 

The worst in the series when it came to this was Fable 3. They tried to be "ambiguous" about their moral dilemmas, but when you had to make the decision, it gave you two buttons to select an option. One button would have a halo over it and the other had devil horns. Yeah, real ambiguous there, Molyneux. George R.R. Martin, look out.

[Muspade]

You can't be directly evil in DA: I, i guarantee it.

[Super Drone]

I think material gains for being evil would be interesting, as long as evil actions also had consquences in other arenas. Party members leaving/ betraying you. Romances and friendship arcs locked out. NPCs that refuse to help you, making some things harder to do even as you gain short-term gains. You could play a secret sociopath, but as was stated, that would be the same game as a "good" play-through until the big reveal.

 

"evil" in the real world doesn't actually come with many rewards. Turning against society, or your social group or "tribe" as it were is usually a fantastic way to end up imprisoned, killed, or driven out into the wilderness to fend for yourself. One of the reasons I assume Evil play-throughs are so limited is because if they were to do them realistically, you'd be hunted down by authorities or locked away in a cage.

[Althix]

 

because majority of the decision for a "bad" guys has chaotic evil alignment, instead of lawful evil or neutral evil.

 

yes you can do some stuff which can be considered "bad", however these decision are spontaneous ones, when "good" deeds are methodical chains of events.

as result "good" deeds have greater weight and moral impact, when "bad" deeds makes you facepalm. a lot.

 

however as example from the first trailer with gameplay. dilemma with soldiers and the village. i can't see clearly "good" or "bad" choices there, however aftermath of the decision made can deliver different moral experiences. (although i hope they did changed that facepalming outburst by Varric. I can't even describe how falsely that looked.)

[Jimbo_Gee79]

While I agree with you in principle. There are a few things to add. Truly evil people wont actually class themsleves as evil. They will often justify their actions as good as you pointed out in your example. Without wishing to provoke an argument Hitler is a great example of this. He saw himself as a liberator of Germany. He felt his actions were justified but to onlookers and victims it was absolutlely horrendous.

 

Being evil should absolutley be an option in video games but so should the consequences of those actions. The problem with being "evil" so to speak is that it doesnt stay hidden for very long and your words and actions get around. Or at least they should.

 

The main problem with the DA games thusfar is that being evil didnt really have consequences that were that far reaching.

 

Personally myself I have never played as an evil character because I just cant stand being mean to people. I know that may seem weird but thats howe I play my games.

[LightningPoodle]

Oh jesus, the Fable series was the worst when it came to morality. Not only did it present to you cartoonishly demonic moral choices, it did so with so much glee that it may as well have spelled out to you "Look at this bad thing you could do! Ho boy, wouldn't it be so funny if you did this bad thing???"

 

See my first point for an explanation of why this was a terrible approach.

 

The worst in the series when it came to this was Fable 3. They tried to be "ambiguous" about their moral dilemmas, but when you had to make the decision, it gave you two buttons to select an option. One button would have a halo over it and the other had devil horns. Yeah, real ambiguous there, Molyneux. George R.R. Martin, look out.

 

Which is why I liked it. Unlike in say Dragon Age where you can grow an emotional attachment to different characters, Fable didn't have that. Either option you picked, the characters that were relevant to the story didn't seem to care all that much. It was purely at you own pleasure whether you brought people to the wheel of death and killed them in hilarious ways. The choice wasn't forced, and yeah, from a very early point in the game you are told that the choices you make can and will affect your morality but then, that's the point of the game really. Choices that affected your character were everywhere. The ones that affected the world were very few. I think it is an example of how a morality system can work but then, it needs to work alongside the story and how that is made. It doesn't work in Dragon Age but it does in Fable.

 

Well, saying it doesn't work in Dragon Age isn't correct, it's there for you to make the choice and it does it very well, the only problem is the emotional attachment so you find yourself mostly always picking the top right option on the wheel because you know that is the good choice.

[LightningPoodle]

Personally myself I have never played as an evil character because I just cant stand being mean to people. I know that may seem weird but thats howe I play my games.

 

That's what I find as well. Sometimes I pick an evil option but it is very rarely and I actually weight up the options in my head and see whether I will actually come out better for it but because it is a game, that doesn't happen.

[puppyofwar]

I though The Old Republic's empire side have well written evil/dark side paths. ESPECIALLY both Sith class......Dear God does it feel so...so...Magnificent Bastard-y

[batlin]

I think material gains for being evil would be interesting, as long as evil actions also had consquences in other arenas. Party members leaving/ betraying you. Romances and friendship arcs locked out. NPCs that refuse to help you, making some things harder to do even as you gain short-term gains. You could play a secret sociopath, but as was stated, that would be the same game as a "good" play-through until the big reveal.

 

"evil" in the real world doesn't actually come with many rewards. Turning against society, or your social group or "tribe" as it were is usually a fantastic way to end up imprisoned, killed, or driven out into the wilderness to fend for yourself. One of the reasons I assume Evil play-throughs are so limited is because if they were to do them realistically, you'd be hunted down by authorities or locked away in a cage.

Are you sure about that? Because often it's the case in real life that the most aggessive people are the ones who get ahead. Especially in the middle ages, the most cutthroat people are the ones who get the power and influence. As unfortunate as it is, nice guys often finish last. Anyway, this ties into the evil side needing to be tempting. If there were consequences to doing bad things that outweigh the perks of being evil, then its no longer tempting to be evil. The consequences should be there, but avoidable if you're smart enough.

 

 

Which is why I liked it. Unlike in say Dragon Age where you can grow an emotional attachment to different characters, Fable didn't have that. Either option you picked, the characters that were relevant to the story didn't seem to care all that much. It was purely at you own pleasure whether you brought people to the wheel of death and killed them in hilarious ways. The choice wasn't forced, and yeah, from a very early point in the game you are told that the choices you make can and will affect your morality but then, that's the point of the game really. Choices that affected your character were everywhere. The ones that affected the world were very few. I think it is an example of how a morality system can work but then, it needs to work alongside the story and how that is made. It doesn't work in Dragon Age but it does in Fable.

 

Well, saying it doesn't work in Dragon Age isn't correct, it's there for you to make the choice and it does it very well, the only problem is the emotional attachment so you find yourself mostly always picking the top right option on the wheel because you know that is the good choice.

I have to say, of all the things I've heard people say Fable did right, "none of the characters are likable" is one I've never considered.

[ShinsFortress]

Personally I don't want to see an evil path handled "well", if at all.

[batlin]

Personally I don't want to see an evil path handled "well", if at all.

This wouldn't be much of a roleplaying game if the only option was to be nice.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

A well handled evil character is one where you can appear the hero with a high standing moral code, while manipulating, deceiving and otherwise control events that lead you to gaining power with no real regard for the safety and well-being of others. 

IMO the new star wars movies did this well with palpatine. He appeared a gentle, caring and good man with good intentions. All while manipulating events to give him unlimited power. 

To roleplay evil is extremely tricky to write though. Because it has to take into account what your intent is outwards and inwards both when you express yourself as with dialogue. There is also the issue of evil and good being subjective not only to individuals but entire people and groups (cultural, societal and environmental factors).

[batlin]

A well handled evil character is one where you can appear the hero with a high standing moral code, while manipulating, deceiving and otherwise control events that lead you to gaining power with no real regard for the safety and well-being of others. 

IMO the new star wars movies did this well with palpatine. He appeared a gentle, caring and good man with good intentions. All while manipulating events to give him unlimited power. 

To roleplay evil is extremely tricky to write though. Because it has to take into account what your intent is outwards and inwards both when you express yourself as with dialogue. There is also the issue of evil and good being subjective not only to individuals but entire people and groups (cultural, societal and environmental factors).

I don't think it would be that tricky. There could be a scene early on where you say "I want to take over the world. I'll play along for now, and strike when the time is right", and then the game proceeds normally, occasionally with parts where you can be more candid with your intentions. Then late in the game where the "big choice" comes you can unveil your betrayal when it's too late to stop you.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

I don't think it would be that tricky. There could be a scene early on where you say "I want to take over the world. I'll play along for now, and strike when the time is right", and then the game proceeds normally, occasionally with parts where you can be more candid with your intentions. Then late in the game where the "big choice" comes you can unveil your betrayal when it's too late to stop you.

That... is actually not a bad idea. 

[Lennard Testarossa]

To roleplay evil is extremely tricky to write though. Because it has to take into account what your intent is outwards and inwards both when you express yourself as with dialogue. There is also the issue of evil and good being subjective not only to individuals but entire people and groups (cultural, societal and environmental factors).

 

Planescape: Torment gave you the option to lie. I always hoped that more games would take that route.

 

'Good' and 'Evil' are probably not very helpful in this context, it's more about selfless versus selfish or heroic versus ruthless. In this regard, the idea of Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade system was actually pretty good. The main problem with it was that being heroic/Paragon always led to ideal results, which made the entire idea of necessary sacrifice or ruthlessness pointless.

[LightningPoodle]

I have to say, of all the things I've heard people say Fable did right, "none of the characters are likable" is one I've never considered.

 

I didn't say none of the characters were likeable, in fact I liked pretty much all of them, I just said that you don't get emotionally attached to those characters. The story of Fable games is focused on you, with a small amount of input from other characters. This was widened a little bit in Fable 3 to allow for the mentoring from Walter and your Butler as well as some other characters, but still, not enough where you actually cared if that character showed his/her face again for the rest of the game. In Dragon Age, you do. If you keep making the wrong decisions and a character leaves because of it, you will feel something; whether it's glee that the character you hated has gone for good, or sadness because you actually liked that character.

[Icefalcon]

My DA2 literally will not allow me to be evil. Three times I've tried each time save corrupts part way through Act 1. All other playthroughs are fine

[batlin]

Planescape: Torment gave you the option to lie. I always hoped that more games would take that route.

Oh man, that was such a great game. It exemplified the strengths of non-voiced games; it was so easy for developers to give you tons of options because they didn't have to give voices to every line of dialogue. I would like lying to come back as well.

 

 

I didn't say none of the characters were likeable, in fact I liked pretty much all of them, I just said that you don't get emotionally attached to those characters. The story of Fable games is focused on you, with a small amount of input from other characters. This was widened a little bit in Fable 3 to allow for the mentoring from Walter and your Butler as well as some other characters, but still, not enough where you actually cared if that character showed his/her face again for the rest of the game.

I'd say you're splitting hairs here. "I liked them, just not enough to the point where I cared if they live or die"

[Super Drone]

Are you sure about that? Because often it's the case in real life that the most aggessive people are the ones who get ahead. Especially in the middle ages, the most cutthroat people are the ones who get the power and influence. As unfortunate as it is, nice guys often finish last. Anyway, this ties into the evil side needing to be tempting. If there were consequences to doing bad things that outweigh the perks of being evil, then its no longer tempting to be evil. The consequences should be there, but avoidable if you're smart enough.

 

 

Agression yes. Agression at the cost of the tribe/society's well-being? Not so much. You can be a ruthless A-hole to an extent. But psychopaths and killers are driven out or killed. There's a reason bandits live in the woods and prey on travellers. They'd be hung if they walked back into the cities.

 

People who play Eeeeeevil in RPGs are banking on the fact that the NPCs are mindless cattle. You can fast-travel and suddenly not be the subject of a man-hunt. You can kill all the guards in Solitude and then just pay a fine and suddenly the merchants will sell you stuff again. The National Guard chases you with tanks and you swim arond in the ocean until all your stars go away. It's cartoonish, but it's the only way to keep the game from falling apart. but it also makes being evil a joke.

[DMaster2]

I kinda agree with OP, but not in one thing. As a paragon/face player (i just can't be evil, not too much anyway) i would be rather upset if the game reward evil choices more than a good choice.

[batlin]

Agression yes. Agression at the cost of the tribe/society's well-being? Not so much. You can be a ruthless A-hole to an extent. But psychopaths and killers are driven out or killed. There's a reason bandits live in the woods and prey on travellers. They'd be hung if they walked back into the cities.

The successful thugs are the ones who founded the cities. Only the thugs who don't have the manpower to be a threat have to hide in the woods.

 

Ever read A Song of Ice and Fire? How many of the elite in those books aren't a-holes?

 

People who play Eeeeeevil in RPGs are banking on the fact that the NPCs are mindless cattle. You can fast-travel and suddenly not be the subject of a man-hunt. You can kill all the guards in Solitude and then just pay a fine and suddenly the merchants will sell you stuff again. The National Guard chases you with tanks and you swim arond in the ocean until all your stars go away. It's cartoonish, but it's the only way to keep the game from falling apart. but it also makes being evil a joke.

If you're only talking about video game RPGs, yeah, the punishments have to be slaps on the wrists because often it's the case that the system isn't robust enough to allow the player to break the law subtley. I've played a couple tabletop RPGs however where we played eveil characters though, and we got away with it because we were smart about it. The GM didn't have to make his NPC characters stupid either.

 

If the consequences are handled through the narrative though, it's just another branching path. Not really a hinderance.

[batlin]

I kinda agree with OP, but not in one thing. As a paragon/face player (i just can't be evil, not too much anyway) i would be rather upset if the game reward evil choices more than a good choice.

So then you admit that you don't enjoy being good if you don't a just reward? >: )

[In Exile]

Are you sure about that? Because often it's the case in real life that the most aggessive people are the ones who get ahead. Especially in the middle ages, the most cutthroat people are the ones who get the power and influence. As unfortunate as it is, nice guys often finish last. Anyway, this ties into the evil side needing to be tempting. If there were consequences to doing bad things that outweigh the perks of being evil, then its no longer tempting to be evil. The consequences should be there, but avoidable if you're smart enough.


I have to say, of all the things I've heard people say Fable did right, "none of the characters are likable" is one I've never considered.

Social manipulation is a lot more valuable than violence. Even cutthroat rules tended to operate more through soft power than just violence. While being aggressive was important, it was a measured and subtle for of aggression rather than open thuggish brutality.