153 réponses à ce sujet

[Zana]

Bioware found the perfect solution to PTSD in their main characters.  They all either die or disappear at the end of the game, so you never get to hear about it.

[TheTurtle]

We already know part of Iron Bull's character arc is going to be dealing with his form of PTSD.

Besides that, forcing psychological trauma on the PC didn't work out well in ME3, at least for many players. I actually very much enjoyed the sections where stress cracked Shepard's psyche and invaded his dreams, but others cried foul and that this was "their" character and they shouldn't be forced to have emotions (as worthless an argument as that is for PTSD situations).

People's biggest problem with that scene wasn't being forced to have emotions it was being forced to care about some kid that we only saw for two seconds. I know lots of people liked the whispering voices of your dead companions(sounds creepy I know) and wouldn't have minded as much had that been expanded on.

[Fast Jimmy]

The only game that ever made me think before shooting was Deus Ex. Every enemy had some dialogue, some we're not too happy to be where they were. I remember one time I was hiding in a vent, I was gonna drop down go Invisible and use the nano blade to cut both soldiers down. I just listened..the conversation was so human I decided to keep making my way through without hurting anyone. All time favorite game for sure.

Except for those boss fights... in a game without any forced combat at any other point, the fact that there were forced boss fights which mandated decently high level combat skills wasn't thought through.

[CronoDragoon]

People's biggest problem with that scene wasn't being forced to have emotions it was being forced to care about some kid that we only saw for two seconds. I know lots of people liked the whispering voices of your dead companions(sounds creepy I know) and wouldn't have minded as much had that been expanded on.

 

We aren't talking about the same people then.

[9TailsFox]

There are lots of inde games out there that have no killing if that is what you prefer then seek them out - Steam can probably point you toward dozens.   There is a reason though that the major studios don't make them.  They don't sell all that well.  Like art house movies they can be beautiful well done and thought provoking.  There just isn't a big enough audience for them.  For every one person who bought Journey probably ten bought Call of Duty.

Dishonored completed all game killed only one person, guess who. Had more fun then in games where kill countless people with no reason.

Kirkwall streets at night you can't have one step without die from bandits. Aveline worst city guard.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

they should do what Alpha Protocol did, put a "orphan counter" on the stats page

[hellbiter88]

But then you are left with a binary Good vs Evil Story that's there to stroke the players ego & pander to their hero fantasy. That's Boring & has been done a Million times 

 

But it would be equally boring to have every enemy encounter filled with lament. If we were to strike a comprimise, I would say to make certain key baddies multi-dimensional with motivations that may not actually be viewed as purely evil. If you can relate to your enemies, as well as your allies, that makes for a more interesting dynamic. Then when you finally murder them you can have the feels. Otherwise, for the "norm", I maintain that if it's evil, just kill it.

[Giantdeathrobot]

We already know part of Iron Bull's character arc is going to be dealing with his form of PTSD.

 

Besides that, forcing psychological trauma on the PC didn't work out well in ME3, at least for many players. I actually very much enjoyed the sections where stress cracked Shepard's psyche and invaded his dreams, but others cried foul and that this was "their" character and they shouldn't be forced to have emotions (as worthless an argument as that is for PTSD situations).

 

My beef was more that, instead of the numerous soldiers and close friends he saw who died, the one who represented Shepard's PTSD was a random kid who he saw for a minute in a blatant case of emotional baiting. Hearing the voices of dead companions was cool, the kid wasn't, and him being re-used for the single most hated NPC in the series probably didn't help matters in the least.

[Nefla]

Except for those boss fights... in a game without any forced combat at any other point, the fact that there were forced boss fights which mandated decently high level combat skills wasn't thought through.

Don't remind me!

[IVI4RCU5]

Something that 99% of the industry is guilty of is the "Gamey" portrayal of the violence that the Player character engages in throughout the game & Bioware are no exception.

 

In Kotor it was faceless Storm troopers, droids & Sith. 

In Mass effect it was faceless Cerberus goons, mercenaries, mecs & Reaper monsters 

And In Dragon Age so far it has been Mindless Dark spawn, Faceless Bandits/templars/mages, a couple of random Dragons & now we have a plot that revolves around stopping Unanimously Evil Demons from Destroying the world. 

 

Notice how the enemies in these games are not really all that sympathetic or morally complex. They are either Evil Monsters or Evil Faceless goons. So you as the player can feel 100% morally justified in mowing them down & having a body count high enough to fill a cemetery just 4 hours in.

 

The thing that absolutely drives me up the wall though is that Violence or death only matters in cut scenes & only when a main character is involved.

 

Hawke & friends kill about 400 people in game play, Lol who cares. Characters joke about it.

Hawke's mom dies, OMG THE FEEL'S! 

 

Shepard Commits genocide & has a body count over 350'000. "What, you think I didn't feel bad? What ever bro party at my apartment YEAH!!!"

Shepard looses one team mate, OMG THE FEEL'S!  

 

See the pattern here? 

Literally NO ONE GIVES A SINGLE FLYING **** about the Violence that happens in gameplay. Hell you could it cut out & the Story would progress the same. It's practically filler content. Just Busy work for the player.

 

At least there is the Roleplaying mechanics (AKA the only relevant part) of the game to engage in MEANINGFULLY but the rest feels like its there just to be filler "Gamey" content.  

 

The only relevance the violence has is "Kill the Bad Guys & gain points to progress the plot. Also its Fun!" 

Nothing is strictly wrong with that approach but if your game is trying to be taken seriously, Mass Murder committed by the player should not be casually dismissed.

 

I know its a war game but Can we have the insane amount violence the player character commits actually affect them & their companions? I'm sure killing HUNDREDS of people MIGHT cause some psychological trauma.

 

We know that the carefully constructed moral Choices that we select form a list will affect the characters but the in game violence should as well.  

 

Thoughts?

 

You're looking for the Deus Ex series.  Or Dishonored.  Possibly Spec Ops: The Line if you're into the idea of finding out nasty things about yourself you really didn't want to know (Turns out if placed in the right circumstances, I have it in me to become a war criminal!). 

Those are really the only games I can think of that have even attempted to make the lives you take over the course of the game weigh on you in any meaningful sense.  The Deus Ex games and Dishonored can also be completed entirely non-lethally. 

[Razyx]

People's biggest problem with that scene wasn't being forced to have emotions it was being forced to care about some kid that we only saw for two seconds. I know lots of people liked the whispering voices of your dead companions(sounds creepy I know) and wouldn't have minded as much had that been expanded on.

 

Huh!, the kid, is not a kid per se, it's the last resemblance of innocence, happiness, enjoyment, even freedom, that Shepard saw (in a being).
In Shepard's dreams 'he' turns into hope, surrounded by fears... the lost along the events.
I think is not that hard to grasp it but, if a dream generates a little confusion among the players (or some players), well, an RPG drama would be... interesting...

[IVI4RCU5]

I would not have add an issue with this (other than the fact I lose choice in how I want to play) if not for the fact that 90% of my tools and weapons were built for killing. So essentially most of the my arsenal was useless and served no purpose other than being a constant reminder of how incredibly frustrating and limited I was to taking out enemies in non-lethal ways.

 

My point is there is a place and time for these kinds of scenarios. I believe to some degree there should be more moral dilemmas when dealing with the choice of killing or saving anyone. I just don't believe it should be every time, otherwise it will lose its appeal and charm. If there will be the option of having non-lethal combat, there should also be more than one or two ways to achieve it, rather than what ME1 did with the tranquilizer grenade or Dishonored did by having to essentially sneak up behind everyone and knock them unconscious or use sleep darts.

 

Did you ever consider that the game was encouraging you to, I don't know, sneak around enemies?  There was no rule saying you had to knock out every guard in the level.  It's not even like you were missing out on xp or anything. 

 

I sure as hell don't want Dragon Age to become a hypocritical, moralisating navel-gazing story like Spec Ops: The Line was. The game forces you to gun down enemies if you want to progress, forces you to push forward, forces you to launch the attack on the civilians, so the entire ''it's all your fault!!'' message is so diluted as to be meaningless, unless the devs expect one to fork over 60$ for a game and then stop playing because pixels are guilt tripping them.

 

Dishonored or Deus Ex are a bit better, since you actually have a choice as to whenever you kill people or don't. But the entire game is designed with that freedom in mind. Pacifist runs in Dragon Age would be cool, if the game properly supports it. But the game attempting to guilt trip you for playing it? No way in hell.

I personally found Spec Ops: The Line to be incredibly affecting, but I do understand your complaints.  I think Spec Ops' power really depends on how on board you as an individual are with some of the decisions the game leads you to make.  More options might have been better but might also have diluted the game's message. 

But I'm curious as to how you felt about a particular moment near the game's end ...

Spoiler

How did you handle the mob that lynched Lugo?  This was the most effective moment in the game for me, because you DID have a choice.  I played the game in a single 8 hour sitting lasting well into the night (didn't plan that), so by that point I was tired, stressed out and frustrated by the tedious combat (that was totally a design choice), and feeling really disgusted and depressed by what I'd seen just a couple hours earlier ... exactly as my character would have been.  And when I found Lugo dead, in a blind flash of anger I just opened fire on the crowd without even considering there might be another option.  I don't normally react like that to any sort of situation, but damn had the game gotten to me by that point.  For a moment, I forgot they were civilians and only saw them as the people who'd just murdered my teammate.  Hence my "right circumstances and I have it in me to become a war criminal" comment in my post above. 

[Joseph Warrick]

Someone make a mod so every time you kill someone the Inquisitor makes the Bruce Lee face.

 

Inquisition is not different to other games as shown in the gameplay videos. Taking violence seriously implies rethinking pretty much every aspect of the Bioware RPG. Attributes, talents, encounters, pacing, levels, story, just about everything. As such a new IP would be better for it rather than the 3rd game of a more traditional series.

 

Also it's silly to say "gameplay" and "combat" are synonymous or that a combat-light game is a novel.

 

In the adventure game Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, every single enemy encounter can be dealt with through either the right speech options, the right item to give, or combat. Combat is there as a possibility if you choose to play that way.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I personally found Spec Ops: The Line to be incredibly affecting, but I do understand your complaints.  I think Spec Ops' power really depends on how on board you as an individual are with some of the decisions the game leads you to make.  More options might have been better but might also have diluted the game's message. 

But I'm curious as to how you felt about a particular moment near the game's end ...

Spoiler

How did you handle the mob that lynched Lugo?  This was the most effective moment in the game for me, because you DID have a choice.  I played the game in a single 8 hour sitting lasting well into the night (didn't plan that), so by that point I was tired, stressed out and frustrated by the tedious combat (that was totally a design choice), and feeling really disgusted and depressed by what I'd seen just a couple hours earlier ... exactly as my character would have been.  And when I found Lugo dead, in a blind flash of anger I just opened fire on the crowd without even considering there might be another option.  I don't normally react like that to any sort of situation, but damn had the game gotten to me by that point.  For a moment, I forgot they were civilians and only saw them as the people who'd just murdered my teammate.  Hence my "right circumstances and I have it in me to become a war criminal" comment in my post above. 

 

Spoiler

I shot them at first (thinking I had no choice) then had an idea, reloaded the save, and saw that they fled if you shot in the air, so I did just that. Not certain if it's in character as Walker by this point is a sociopathic berserker, but it was cool that they thought of that nevertheless. Didn't stop me from having Walker shoot himself in the end, it seemed the only proper outcome to me.

 

Overall I thought even Far Cry 3 did this better. While the game doesn't really dwell on the death of random mooks, the final scene does make you realize Jason has his knife at the throat of the girl he loves and is about to murder the people he set out to rescue in the first place in cold blood at the insistence of a creepy cult leader who claims to love him while having seen him thrice. If he kills her, he becomes barely better than a beast, and dies anyway. Even if he doesn't, the ending narration clearly states the events will haunt him for his entire life and he will never truly be able to readjust to a sheltered existence in a Western country. Hell, I can just imagine him, the once-terror of Rook Island who brought down 2 warlords by himself and killed hundreds, going bersek when someone dares eyeball him the wrong way or something arrest him to give him a ticket or something.

 

 

@ Razyx: uh, it wasn't confusing at all, it was cliche and stupid to have Shepard focus on that particular image when s/he had at least one person fairly close to him/her die a violent death in service, and could easily have seen even a love interest mercilessly gunned down in ME2. The kid just came out of the blue and lacked any subtlety whatsoever.

[IVI4RCU5]

Spoiler

I shot them at first (thinking I had no choice) then had an idea, reloaded the save, and saw that they fled if you shot in the air, so I did just that. Not certain if it's in character as Walker by this point is a sociopathic berserker, but it was cool that they thought of that nevertheless. Didn't stop me from having Walker shoot himself in the end, it seemed the only proper outcome to me.

 

Overall I thought even Far Cry 3 did this better. While the game doesn't really dwell on the death of random mooks, the final scene does make you realize Jason has his knife at the throat of the girl he loves and is about to murder the people he set out to rescue in the first place in cold blood at the insistence of a creepy cult leader who claims to love him while having seen him thrice. If he kills her, he becomes barely better than a beast, and dies anyway. Even if he doesn't, the ending narration clearly states the events will haunt him for his entire life and he will never truly be able to readjust to a sheltered existence in a Western country. Hell, I can just imagine him, the once-terror of Rook Island who brought down 2 warlords by himself and killed hundreds, going bersek when someone dares eyeball him the wrong way or something arrest him to give him a ticket or something.

 

 

Heh.  I could've reloaded a save too, as once I took a mental step back and looked at what I'd just done I was immediately disgusted with myself, but in my mind that wasn't the point.  What made that moment hit me so hard was that the game provoked me into crossing that line (no pun intended) at all.  Reloading a save doesn't erase the fact that I made that choice. 

I like to tell myself it wouldn't be so easy in real life. 

As for Far Cry 3...

Spoiler

I certainly enjoyed its gameplay, and it had really fun characters, but the ending didn't really work for me.  I mean, if I put myself in the head of Jason Brody, sure, I am now a hopelessly broken killing machine who will never be able to reintegrate into society, and yes, I am no longer able to relate to my friends and girlfriend on any meaningful level, but I fail to make the jump to "yeah that totally justifies me just killing them all in cold blood".  No... they can still go live their lives without me.  Why do they need to die?  Refusing to kill them was a no-brainer. 

I feel like a more effective ending would have been something along the lines of: You don't snap out of the drug-induced vision Citra puts you in, and you either follow her instructions like any good gamer would and kill the evil-demon-monster-end-boss in the vision only to THEN snap out of it and see that it was actually your captive girlfriend you just slaughtered, OR in order to get the "good ending" i.e. preserve any shred of your humanity whatsoever you have to just turn around, disobey Citra's instructions, and walk away from the end boss fight.  I feel something like that would have sent a more powerful message about the mindless pursuit of violence that a majority of video games tend to take for granted. 

Having said all that not every game needs to focus on such issues.  One Spec Ops: The Line is plenty, thank you.  I'm quite happily content with Dragon Age's heavy focus on party-based combat, and as long as the encounter design and enemy numbers don't boggle my suspension of disbelief (*cough* DA2 *cough*) I expect to enjoy Inquisition's combat immensely. 

[Razyx]

[..]
 @ Razyx: uh, it wasn't confusing at all, it was cliche and stupid to have Shepard focus on that particular image when s/he had at least one person fairly close to him/her die a violent death in service, and could easily have seen even a love interest mercilessly gunned down in ME2. The kid just came out of the blue and lacked any subtlety whatsoever.

I will be brief, yep it was cliché, but a kid (what he portrays) is not (in) an adult/soldier.., Where's the empathy??
What the OP is suggesting..., would be a completely new game.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Heh.  I could've reloaded a save too, as once I took a mental step back and looked at what I'd just done I was immediately disgusted with myself, but in my mind that wasn't the point.  What made that moment hit me so hard was that the game provoked me into crossing that line (no pun intended) at all.  Reloading a save doesn't erase the fact that I made that choice. 

I like to tell myself it wouldn't be so easy in real life. 

As for Far Cry 3...

Spoiler

I certainly enjoyed its gameplay, and it had really fun characters, but the ending didn't really work for me.  I mean, if I put myself in the head of Jason Brody, sure, I am now a hopelessly broken killing machine who will never be able to reintegrate into society, and yes, I am no longer able to relate to my friends and girlfriend on any meaningful level, but I fail to make the jump to "yeah that totally justifies me just killing them all in cold blood".  No... they can still go live their lives without me.  Why do they need to die?  Refusing to kill them was a no-brainer. 

I feel like a more effective ending would have been something along the lines of: You don't snap out of the drug-induced vision Citra puts you in, and you either follow her instructions like any good gamer would and kill the evil-demon-monster-end-boss in the vision only to THEN snap out of it and see that it was actually your captive girlfriend you just slaughtered, OR in order to get the "good ending" i.e. preserve any shred of your humanity whatsoever you have to just turn around, disobey Citra's instructions, and walk away from the end boss fight.  I feel something like that would have sent a more powerful message about the mindless pursuit of violence that a majority of video games tend to take for granted. 

Having said all that not every game needs to focus on such issues.  One Spec Ops: The Line is plenty, thank you.  I'm quite happily content with Dragon Age's heavy focus on party-based combat, and as long as the encounter design and enemy numbers don't boggle my suspension of disbelief (*cough* DA2 *cough*) I expect to enjoy Inquisition's combat immensely. 

 

Spoiler

 Personally, I actually role-played Jason a bit. First time I completely indulged in the power the game gave me, and if it was red, it was dead. So it felt logical to choose the bad ending, since he was so far gone. Second time I observed restraint, and chose the good one.

 

But I see what you mean. I'm not too keen on the game playing a trick like that then blaming the player for it, however; how are you supposed to know that, this time, you can walk away, and have to if you want a better ending? The game must drop hints, or else it looks like an ass pull. 

 

 

A game that did that is Metro: Last Light. The game has a hidden morality rating that determines if you get the good ending. Killing people reduces that rating, all fair and good since stealth is a viable option. But it's OK to kill in some situations where you defend yourself and stealth sin't viable. But in some other it's not OK even if you do defend yourself. And there are also arbitrary requirements to meet, such as playing music instruments, doing fetch quests and stopping your vital mission for the entire duration of a theater presentation (but stopping a minute for a lap dance? BAD BOY). All of this is never indicated in-game, and

 

 

Spoiler

the protagonist only survives and you get a proper epilogue 

 

if you do most of those completely arbitrary steps like a good dog. That was pure bullshit.

[The Night Haunter]

I can't think of any way that this could be good for an rpg. After every fight your hero falls into a heap and cries of the bodies of thugs and murderers..... That would get old quick. There is no PTSD for game heroes.

[IVI4RCU5]

Spoiler

 Personally, I actually role-played Jason a bit. First time I completely indulged in the power the game gave me, and if it was red, it was dead. So it felt logical to choose the bad ending, since he was so far gone. Second time I observed restraint, and chose the good one.

 

But I see what you mean. I'm not too keen on the game playing a trick like that then blaming the player for it, however; how are you supposed to know that, this time, you can walk away, and have to if you want a better ending? The game must drop hints, or else it looks like an ass pull. 

 

 

A game that did that is Metro: Last Light. The game has a hidden morality rating that determines if you get the good ending. Killing people reduces that rating, all fair and good since stealth is a viable option. But it's OK to kill in some situations where you defend yourself and stealth sin't viable. But in some other it's not OK even if you do defend yourself. And there are also arbitrary requirements to meet, such as playing music instruments, doing fetch quests and stopping your vital mission for the entire duration of a theater presentation (but stopping a minute for a lap dance? BAD BOY). All of this is never indicated in-game, and

 

 

Spoiler

the protagonist only survives and you get a proper epilogue 

 

if you do most of those completely arbitrary steps like a good dog. That was pure bullshit.

 

I haven't played Last Light, but I have played Metro 2033, and it sounds to me like you're describing that game.  Unless they did the same thing in the sequel and you actually are talking about that?  In any case, I didn't like the game enough to play it more than once, so I didn't see the multiple endings, but I like the idea of such a system a lot (some of the arbitrary conditions you mentioned sound stupid though). 

I actually wish Dishonored, a game that I really did like on the whole, had taken this particular page from Metro's book and not advertised to the player in big bright neon letters that killing lots of people would lead to a worse ending.  That would have led to people playing the game more organically, making choices about who to kill and who not to based on what they actually felt was right (or what was convenient, I suppose, which reflects just as much upon the player) on a case by case basis, rather than deciding "oh I want the good ending" or "nah I'm gonna be evil this time", which is a boring, artificial way to handle morality. 

In general, I'm not a fan of games with a binary "morality meter"  because it leads to people picking one path and sticking with it rather than actually thinking about the choices they make.  Especially egregious is when the game actually provides gameplay benefits to incentivize you to do this (*glowers at the otherwise-excellent KOTOR II*). 

Unlike you, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of "secret endings".  I think it's far more interesting for a game to give you an ending which is appropriate based on the way you chose to play, and not the one you decided you liked best from the list presented to you.  If you get an ending you're upset with, that should make you question the decisions you made over the course of the game, and ask yourself where you may have gone wrong, and what you could do differently. I agree some hints should be there, but I don't think outcomes should be spelled out for you in advance. 

Dragon Age has always done a good job of avoiding all the above pitfalls, though.  You make choices.  Some people approve of them.  Others don't.  You experience the consequences.  That's exactly how it should be.  I'll also give an honorable mention to the Witcher games for handling this aspect of storytelling very well. 

[9TailsFox]

DA:O was much better in treat in game Violence seriously, DA2 was just horrible. First bandit encounter in DA:O you can try to  arrest criminals, this is only what I ask.

I will let you go. I will let you go if you give you money/what I need, I kill you all, I arrest you. After this its up to enemy to make decision.

 

And in DA2 I was forced to kill templars and mages who work together against Meridith. And what make it worse I wasn't even give line no wait I want to help you.

 

Best example in DA:O When we save Anora we are arrested we can fight, try to explain, or surrender, it was perfect, and gamplay and story is not separate, you can't win because you outnumbered but it is not impossible. No mater if you win or lost story recognize it.

[Star fury]

Your suggestions, op?

[AtreiyaN7]

Why don't you have your Inquisitor pick flowers every time he/she kills an enemy. Then he/she can make bouquets for the deceased enemy's funeral services. *sarcasm* It's unrealistic to expect to experience all the psychological trauma that war can inflict on a solider in an RPG where your hero is super busy saving the world and probably has to be the emotional rock for everyone around him/her.

 

The bottom line is that real psychological trauma isn't fun - ever watch documentaries about soldiers with PTSD? It's not something that I look forward to experiencing. Gee, let's have the Inquisitor suffer insomnia! Gee, let's have the Inquisitor hallucinate. Gee, let's have the Inquisitor try to kill his/her LI because he/she is in the throes of a traumatic flashback to the war! Gee, let's have the Inquisitor become a total shut-in because he/she can't even be on the streets without thinking they're under imminent threat of attack!

 

Seriously, go watch The Act of Killing if you're so interested in the effects of mass murder on the psyches of actual killers. It's an interesting film about people who are real-life mass murderers - and most of them seem to have no conscience whatsoever (except for one guy whom I loathed...but who may have finally developed a vestigial conscience towards the end of the film). As far as games go, faceless mooks are there solely to present a combat challenge and to give me my experience points, and I'm good with that.

 

I think the only way to show the impact of war in the game in a more personal way that might make you think about the morality of what you're doing is if there are actual quests in the game that actually manage to depict nuanced portrayals of some of those faceless mooks and that present them in a sympathetic light. Otherwise, you probably want to leave the war trauma stuff to documentaries and films that can treat the issue with the respect, the empathy, and the intelligence that the topic deserves.

 

EDIT: I do agree with that poster who cited Shepard having a few interesting moments depicting psychological trauma (vis-a-vis his/her nightmares, etc.) in ME3, but I think that the differences are that A) the player inhabited a single character through three games in the ME series (giving you more time to explore the character and relationships) and the fact that the situation with the Reapers was way more nihilistic. That being said, the psychological trauma in ME3 seemed to have more to do with all the people that Shepard couldn't save, rather than all the killing that he/she was directly responsible for.

[Star fury]

they should do what Alpha Protocol did, put a "orphan counter" on the stats page

It's strange how so many single fathers choose extremely dangerous jobs in AP.

[Shahadem]

I've always been bothered by the senseless violence in Star Wars games especially. I mean somehow killing those thousands of nameless enemies leading up to the big boss was no big deal and you didn't gain any dark side points for killing them instead of allowing them to surrender, but heavens help you if you choose to kill the boss, then you get dark side points up the wazoo.

 

So saving countless lives by killing the one person who will without fail go on to murder people if left alive is a dark sided action, but killing thousands of people just so you get a chance to talk to this guy and then walking away once you do and let him continue his murder spree which is actually smaller than yours is a light sided action. It just doesn't work.

[9TailsFox]

I've always been bothered by the senseless violence in Star Wars games especially. I mean somehow killing those thousands of nameless enemies leading up to the big boss was no big deal and you didn't gain any dark side points for killing them instead of allowing them to surrender, but heavens help you if you choose to kill the boss, then you get dark side points up the wazoo.

 

So saving countless lives by killing the one person who will without fail go on to murder people if left alive is a dark sided action, but killing thousands of people just so you get a chance to talk to this guy and then walking away once you do and let him continue his murder spree which is actually smaller than yours is a light sided action. It just doesn't work.

Star wars logic.