74 réponses à ce sujet

[Queen Skadi]

There's enough cruelty, suffering and pain in the world as is. I have no desire to fantasize about inflicting undue suffering and misery upon fictional characters. It's tedium enough that most games involve solving problems at the barrel of a gun / end of a sword, I see no reason to make it less unpleasant by turning those guns / swords upon innocents undeserving of such a fate.

 

I could certainly play a non-hero .. a self-centered character interested in personal gain only, so long as they aren't cruel or evil in the process. 

 

Making a game where you're just a cruel villain wouldn't appeal at all to me... RPGs need to give that choice (I have no opposition to it being a matter of choice in game.. but if the protagonist can only be evil then I don't want to play it).

 

If you really have a desire to be cruel and evil, you could always get that disgusting game called "Hatred".. it might sate your lust for fantasy cruelty (or better yet.. pass on the game entirely and don't give them money)

 

Perhaps I did not explain my point as well as I should have, its not about kicking puppies and punting babies off cliffs because that is how you get your jollies but rather because in order to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs and your mission requires you to be ruthless, it is about giving the player more incentive to perform harsher acts and punishing idealistic notions that everyone can live in harmony and the perfect outcome can be achieved because you are mary sue hero extraordinaire.

 

It is about having the player walk that dangerous line between hero and villain and have them question their own morality and whether or not they are truly the hero.

[78stonewobble]

I think I'd rather have 2 good games. One about being the hero and one about being the villain, than try to do both, in one game. 

[AlanC9]

How does locking you into a role make the game better?

[Jaquio]

Being a hero is more rewarding when the option exists for you not to be.  It's especially rewarding when the option to be evil is so tempting.

[Semyaza82]

So far i think ME has actually been pretty good about giving you the choice on how to play, DA:O and DA2 as well. With DA:I the story kind of needed you to be mostly a good guy - but i think fetch quests also limited you're character choices as well. They want a thing, you go fetch it - no choice beyond doing or not doing the mission. Just hope the big open world of ME:A doesn't lead to more of this.

[78stonewobble]

How does locking you into a role make the game better?

 

I don't know... presumably you don't buy games with graphics either, since they limit your roleplaying possibilities, but if you do buy games with graphics... then you ought to answer it yourself.  

[Queen Skadi]

How does locking you into a role make the game better?

 

Its not locking the player into a role and offering them no choice it is how the choice is structured, whether you chose the ruthless path or shy away from it the game should make you question whether or not you are doing the right thing. Would the mission have been more successful and would you have been able to avoid getting your favorite squadmate killed if you had been more ruthless? Is victory worth the cost if this is what you need to become in order to achieve it? That sort of thing.

[Scofield]

Being evil?bad? well thats the easy way, it's easy for me to walk out an knock out someone an take what they have, its easy to belittle someone to the point where they be crying, it easy to be feared, it easy to murder, it easy to take every possession someone has an then take more

 

What is hard is knowing whats right and doing it

 

so no, im not bored playing "heroes" since it probably one of the hardest things to be in RL an so easy to be everything else, what i am bored with is the self same story of the "hero" being told over n over with pink ribbons attached to make it look different

 

Look to the stories of ppl like Logan Ninefingers from first law trilogy, of a guy struggling to be a better man, for me thats the stories of "heroes" that games need to start doing

[ArabianIGoggles]

I liked playing the hero/bad ass.  I want my character to be able to slap those who mean mug, pull guns on krogan in a bar and kill any bartender that gives me guff.

[KCMeredith]

Would be really cool to play the game thinking you're doing something great and in the end a group of people show up and try to kill you because you're actually the antagonist.

 

Metro did that in a cool way, you play through the game thinking the dark ones are hostile and want to destroy everything and later on you find out that they actually just want to make contact and you wiped out an entire race of peaceful beings.

[Jaquio]

Would be really cool to play the game thinking you're doing something great and in the end a group of people show up and try to kill you because you're actually the antagonist.

 

Metro did that in a cool way, you play through the game thinking the dark ones are hostile and want to destroy everything and later on you find out that they actually just want to make contact and you wiped out an entire race of peaceful beings.

 

Not quite the same thing, but that sort of idea is why Spec Ops: The Line was so critically acclaimed (and rightfully so).

[Ahriman]

I'd like to be playing a Supervillain please.

My hope never dies. Come on, game industry, it can be fun and financially succesfull. Let me plan ahead so all those pathetic hero parties will be trying to catch up with me, not the other way around.

Would be really cool to play the game thinking you're doing something great and in the end a group of people show up and try to kill you because you're actually the antagonist.
 
Metro did that in a cool way, you play through the game thinking the dark ones are hostile and want to destroy everything and later on you find out that they actually just want to make contact and you wiped out an entire race of peaceful beings.

But then they took off my option to kill these things regardless.

[FKA_Servo]

Metro did that in a cool way, you play through the game thinking the dark ones are hostile and want to destroy everything and later on you find out that they actually just want to make contact and you wiped out an entire race of peaceful beings.

 

Man, I am not about to actually complain about someone posting spoilers for a years old franchise on an unrelated forum, but still... .

 

Serves me right though for not staying on top of my backlog.

[Queen Skadi]

My hope never dies. Come on, game industry, it can be fun and financially succesfull. Let me plan ahead so all those pathetic hero parties will be trying to catch up with me, not the other way around.

 

Not quite the subject but I gotta admit I would like to see a sequel, remake, spiritual successor to Evil Genius, something with a sort of Venture Bros, James Bond type flair.

[MsKlaussen]

To tell the truth, I actually prefer Bethesda's approach, meaning the player's interaction with the main storyline is completely up to the player. If there's any at all. In fact I 'd go one better than them and fix it so that the player's deviation from or refusal to traverse the main story arc is reflected in what happens.

 

In TES, nothing happens to the world if the main protagnonist takes forever to do something related to the storyline. It's like it will wait forever without progressing until the player rejoins. But the player never actually has to, and the world goes about its business without fallout from the storyline. They sort of tried to arrest that in Skyrim, where the climax of the main story, killing the main evil dragon, seemed to have a time limit.

 

I would prefer that not only can you deviate from or ignore the main storyline, but when you do, there are benefits or repercussions. If you don't help someone when they need it, it changes things and comes back on you. Like "someone" needed to help Mordin in ME2 and if Shepard didn't, then people remembered that and it made things harder down the line with a chain of events that could be totally unexpected. People who woul dnormally have showed up somewhere are now dead and don't. Planets are taken over that would have been free. Etc.

 

There is a radomizer on the quests in Skyrim that generates an infinite number of random quests to make the world seem like it's continuous. Something similar would be awesome in ME - such that it didn't appear the world doesn't move unless the player is moving it.

[Kalas Magnus]

me.

 

i wanted to keep working with cerberus in me3.

 

thats y i luv fallout. i coud join the slavers(legion), anarchist(benny), republic(ncr), or the businessman(house). i liked being able to choose.

[AlanC9]

Its not locking the player into a role and offering them no choice it is how the choice is structured, whether you chose the ruthless path or shy away from it the game should make you question whether or not you are doing the right thing. Would the mission have been more successful and would you have been able to avoid getting your favorite squadmate killed if you had been more ruthless? Is victory worth the cost if this is what you need to become in order to achieve it? That sort of thing.

Sure. I was disagreeing with 78stonewobble, not you.

[AlanC9]

I don't know... presumably you don't buy games with graphics either, since they limit your roleplaying possibilities, but if you do buy games with graphics... then you ought to answer it yourself.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[Fixers0]

I'd like an option to be a hardcore neo-facist in a Mass Effect game. Burning villages, execute people in a ditch, give speeches on the inherent inferiority of alien races, you know that kind of stuff. ME1 kind of skirted te edges of this with certain renegade options, but it was way to inconsistent in it's execution.

[SolNebula]

I'd like an option to be a hardcore neo-facist in a Mass Effect game. Burning villages, execute people in a ditch, give speeches on the inherent inferiority of alien races, you know that kind of stuff. ME1 kind of skirted te edges of this with certain renegade options, but it was way to inconsistent in it's execution.

 

Oh man that would be right up to my alley.

 

I would sign for a game where I would be the villain purposely having a goal of domination and having the hero trying to stop me. We seriously need more games like this.

[Annos Basin]

Bad guys have too little to lose. Just their vain pride, property and maybe some poor trophy pal or lover. Works better (if it works at all) in games without much story to speak of. Someone compassionate worries about so many other things beside that. How could that stop being interesting?

 

I don't know if the protagonist needs to be right all the time though, even if it's fun trying to be. I try to make my customizable guys and girls to appeal wimpy and silly and greedy and ragged or neurotic or something like that to balance out their goodwill. Even better if other characters won't treat them as heroes. In short I like Luigi more than Mario these days. But I get impression many Bioware fans expect rather epic games, and therefore powerful protagonists? (Dragon Age 2 was pretty much my ideal game...)

 

What worries me when kind and nasty options are the default in a game is that easily drops out other ways to react. If you don't want to be a jerk, there's only one, very obvious way to handle the situation, and I guess that also applies to players who don't want the cutiepie. Though two options are of course better than one. kinda the same issue as in gender conversations. People talk about walking masculinely or femininely, ignoring how movements can show your characteristics in several different ways. Then again, while I still wish gender would affect your gestures less than your dialogue choices, Mass Effect has featured paragon&renegade system previously and if they really wanna continue with it, I guess I can't complain since it didn't actually bother me so far.

 

As devoted paragon player, I say it'd be nice if certain villains would believe renegade harshing better than diplomacy, and certain renegade options would upset some characters.

 

What I hope to never see is children getting killed in a game, especially by me. In reality they're most common victims of violence, and that's unfairest violence there is. I just never again want to accidentally end up playing a dead children scene in a game during a day when there was headlines about attack in school or serious domestic violence. That's cheap and tasteless and ruins your day. And it's too questionable who would want to see or write something like that. Violence against kids or even monsters resembling kids should receive actually more protests than rape simulators, which would automatically ruin any game developer's reputation "even if it's only a game". (/in bad mood after stupidly seeing that dante's inferno pic)

I meant little kids. Don't know if I'd be as protective towards fictional teenagers if they're written to be villains, as they can be strong and think for themselves.

 

Edit. By the way the dead child scene I mentioned playing before wasn't referring to Mass Effect 3. In ME3 the little boy's case at least wasn't presented in cold "who cares"-attitude. Though I guess it got sketchier in the end, but that's not what I was trying to talk about here.

Modifié par Annos Basin, 17 septembre 2015 - 07:47 .

[r.anger]

I am actually weary of playing the hero.....even when I was the badass hero, I was still the hero. Don't necessarily want to play the villain, but, I would like to play the "reluctant hero".....not know everything, not solve everything, make terrible mistakes.....that would be interesting.

[KainD]

Violence against kids or even monsters resembling kids should receive actually more protests than rape simulators, which would automatically ruin any game developer's reputation "even if it's only a game". 

 

I don't like X, therefore any game developer that includes X in their game should have bad reputation, even though I am not obligated to support them personally. Great stance. 

[Seboist]

I'd like an option to be a hardcore neo-facist in a Mass Effect game. Burning villages, execute people in a ditch, give speeches on the inherent inferiority of alien races, you know that kind of stuff. ME1 kind of skirted te edges of this with certain renegade options, but it was way to inconsistent in it's execution.

 

Would tie in nicely with how ME2 taught us that humans are of superior racial stock to the other aliens due to their genetic diversity.

[animedreamer]

No.

Mainly because, as far as 'rich storytelling experiences' go, video games rarely hit the mark (at least in regards to being serious about the whole topic.) and I do not think Bioware to be capable of a fully fleshed out villain story, especially with the villain as the protagonist.

It's rare that any game even attempt this let alone make a serious attempt at it, but in my opinion for it to even happen there has to be the option of playing the benevolent hero in the first place. BioWare has great character writers in terms of lore and background, but making a scenario where you can play the villain from start to finish with villain-like payoffs seems to be beyond them as of late. I never finished the Stars Wars games they've made so maybe I'm wrong, but the one I did play still started you out neutral and you could decide by your actions whether you would go to the darkside, but whether you could truly do villainous things I do not know.