I'm evil when it feels like what I should do, like what you do to that annoying reporter in ME2.I mostly play the good guy in game, as it is what I would do, or would want to do in real life.
Have a hard time being evil?
- Thread starter thelastmccabe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with being evil in most games is that... You know what? The Ferrett said it best, and he said it first, so I'll just let him say it once more.
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/189493.html
Hah, that was great. Back yet? Cool. TO THE TOPIC! [/whoosh]
I have a hard time not being good in games. Mostly good, anyway. My Fallout characters are prone to stealing things and in Mass Effect my mostly-paragon Shephards still know to keep their pimp hands strong. Bioshock, however, I was "completely good", i.e. I saved all the little sisters, because if you do they give you stuff. See, in games there is very little incentive to be evil pricks whenever a morality system is implemented, and likewise very little reason not to be good in the same situations. Sure, picking the evil choice might get me more money, but what do I need money for if the good option convinces the peasants to just give me stuff for free?
Also, now that I'm playing Red Dead Redemption, I help as many strangers as I can, especially if helping them leaves plenty of loot-laden corpses afterwards. Need that money to buy bullets and drugs. I do cheat at poker, but if I get caught, I aim to shoot the gun out of their hand. Can't very well play poker with corpses, can you?
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/189493.html
Hah, that was great. Back yet? Cool. TO THE TOPIC! [/whoosh]
I have a hard time not being good in games. Mostly good, anyway. My Fallout characters are prone to stealing things and in Mass Effect my mostly-paragon Shephards still know to keep their pimp hands strong. Bioshock, however, I was "completely good", i.e. I saved all the little sisters, because if you do they give you stuff. See, in games there is very little incentive to be evil pricks whenever a morality system is implemented, and likewise very little reason not to be good in the same situations. Sure, picking the evil choice might get me more money, but what do I need money for if the good option convinces the peasants to just give me stuff for free?
Also, now that I'm playing Red Dead Redemption, I help as many strangers as I can, especially if helping them leaves plenty of loot-laden corpses afterwards. Need that money to buy bullets and drugs. I do cheat at poker, but if I get caught, I aim to shoot the gun out of their hand. Can't very well play poker with corpses, can you?
i have thought about this(hell i was even considering making this EAXCT thread at one time or another).i myself prefer playing the "white knight" when ever i get the chance in a game and i feel better for it. i feel as if i can get into the story more than if i were just a psychotic lunatic killing to get what he wants, but when i see the people in the that need my help i feel as if im really helping them and am actually apart of the universe and am thus more immersed and have a overall better game play experience then just being evil and killing people like ants because i felt like it.that said however if evil is done intelligently i am open to doing it like in mass effect 2 some of the "evil" option while morally ambiguous and leaning towards the eilve side make sense like the one scene during mordin's loyalty mission where the krogan battle master is lecturing shepherd while standing on top of a fuel line that you can shoot, i found this to be a great form of "evil" and was glad to have taken this option because alothe it was "evil" it made sense and therefore was more imeive and provide a nice addition the the charter as well as my overall enjoyment of the gamethelastmccabe said:
I have a God-awful time trying to play evil characters because I always end up feeling so terrible. In Fallout I CONSTANTLY promise I'll be an evil character, but instead always end up playing "Chaotic Good"-type character just because being a prick isn't fun to me.
I think it's just because I play games to roleplay. If I'm in the role of the character I'm playing, I'm not gonna be a jerk-off for the sake of being a jerk-off. If I have a REASON for being one, like maybe getting a large pay-off, then sure. Otherwise I just...well, in Dragon Age I pretty much killed the Archdemon with friendship and kindness.
I think it's just because I play games to roleplay. If I'm in the role of the character I'm playing, I'm not gonna be a jerk-off for the sake of being a jerk-off. If I have a REASON for being one, like maybe getting a large pay-off, then sure. Otherwise I just...well, in Dragon Age I pretty much killed the Archdemon with friendship and kindness.
I always play good on my first playthrough, and I don't think I've ever gotten all the way through on an evil playthrough.
In Fallout 3 I think quite a few of the choices make sense. Looking at the first, it's between a swanky pad (evil) and a crumbling shack (good), so there is some purpose to the evil choice.
Most of the main missions are "good" I think (meaning they give good karma), but, outside of quests, killing neutral humans and stealing are considered evil, and both have their clear purposes (money/survival)
Now that I think about it, the evil choices tend to have more of a purist attitude (I'll refrain from explaining so as to avoid spoilers). At very least they tend to be believable, especially since the main character (you) is left entirely to your control rather than talking about their actions in cutscenes.
In Fallout 3 I think quite a few of the choices make sense. Looking at the first, it's between a swanky pad (evil) and a crumbling shack (good), so there is some purpose to the evil choice.
Most of the main missions are "good" I think (meaning they give good karma), but, outside of quests, killing neutral humans and stealing are considered evil, and both have their clear purposes (money/survival)
Now that I think about it, the evil choices tend to have more of a purist attitude (I'll refrain from explaining so as to avoid spoilers). At very least they tend to be believable, especially since the main character (you) is left entirely to your control rather than talking about their actions in cutscenes.
I try playing power hungry characters in games, I go for whatever I believe would most benefit my character. If being evil is just for teh evulz then he'd probably just help them out for a reward or something. Being Good or Evil never made sense to me because a full personality is a combination of good and evil traits or even just neutral traits.
Yeah...Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines doesn't have a morality system, but it does have a humanity system. The more people you murder or whatnot, the more you risk turning into a batshit crazy evil vampire. Which encourages you to stay nice-ish...the system is a bit arbitrary, of course. Also, when you have to nick things for the Prince, if they are guarded by police or security, he tells you very clearly not to kill anyone, and you get more XP if you don't.
After the first times I had to murder innocents (which felt pretty bad), I thought to myself "hell with this" and decided to be evil...up until the opportunity to be evil came up, and I changed my mind.
Actually, now that I think of it, in that game, I played a fairly nice and unscary vampire.
After the first times I had to murder innocents (which felt pretty bad), I thought to myself "hell with this" and decided to be evil...up until the opportunity to be evil came up, and I changed my mind.
Actually, now that I think of it, in that game, I played a fairly nice and unscary vampire.
Never have any problem.thelastmccabe said:
The thing to remember is justification. Evil people never consider themselves evil, just that they're the only one that can see the TRUTH.
To steal a quote
It makes a lot of sense within context though. The lower your humanity, the larger the chance you will frenzy (become uncontrollable killing everything in your path), which will lead to Masquerade violations. Since you are playing a Camarilla stooge (willingly or not), this makes sense. Heck, even deciding to join the Anarchs doesn't really change this, as they are quite willing to tell you the Masquerade is not necessarily a Camarilla invention, but just common sense. The Sabbat are the traditional evil insane vampires, and there is no way to join them.thaluikhain said:
How I play Bloodlines depends on the Clan I use. Brujah or Gangrel I will play as evil, Ventrue or Tremere as more good. Malkavian... all bets are off.
My main problem with playing 'evil' in games is that usually the good/evil axis is 'saint'/'satan': you either save the orphanage from debt, or you set fire to it and kill any stragglers.
I want a more refined evil option... e.g. you can buy the orphanage's debts and then force them to pay (and thus close), then sell the building at a profit, leaiving the orphans homeless and hungry.
Already mentioned, but really the only game I know of that really allows for evil gameplay is Planescape: Torment. You can completely demoralize your companions, screw over entire planes, even sell your companion into slavery for extra power... and it's all handled well. Alas the evil rewards are far less powerful than the good ones.
Another good example is the Brotherhood of NOD in the two Command & Conquer games, or the Soviets in Red Alert. They are not evil just to murder anything but moves, but to further their own goals no matter what the cost. Set fire to a village to film propaganda movies to discredit the self-righteous GDI? Yes please!
And actually if you think of it, most protagonists are at least a little evil. Any RPG character is a kleptomaniac and a burglar (robbing chests in houses, entering them at will), but it is extremely rare for a game to call you on it.
Yeah, I thought that was quite well handled, actually. Though, is there much replay value? Not finished the game yet, but it doesn't seem like something I'd play more than once, given how important the linear storyline is, and how slowly learning about the world is a big part of it.erbkaiser said:
Bloodlines is extremely replayable. You'd be surprised how many differences there can be between two different playthrough and how vastly different the experience can be between even two different clans. Quite a few multiple endings as well!thaluikhain said:
All play through the same basic series of events, but the outlook is quite a bit changed. It's surprisingly well done. Playing as a Nosferatu, a Malkavian, a Tremere and a Brujah are all fairly unique experience, with the other clans having their own unique moments as well though easily the most outstanding are the Nosferatu and Malkavian for... obvious reasons. One being so hideously ugly that even being seen is a masquerade violation and the other being so batshit insane you don't even know what you're saying half the time and neither does your character or anyone else.
Tis glorious!
As for the evil thing... nah. I tend to bask in it truth be told. I absolutely love how in Black & White your people all become hunched and miserable as dying vines overgrow the buildings, the sky turns a perpetual dark, the music turns creepy, and there's the constant erry whispers of 'deeeaaathhhh'. Awesome! Plus playing as a maniacal overlord is always fun in strategy games.
Ah, ok. I was really put off being a Nosferatu, cause it sounds like the whole game becomes a stealth mission, and I hate stealth missions. Though, it'd make actual stealth missions easier, I guess. Also, no fun social skills, I like those.The Madman said:
...
As for "Evil"...well, I find it easier to be "game evil" than "me evil". That is, when the game tells you you should think something is wrong, but don't, it's easier to do than when you think something is wrong, regardless of what the game says.
My feelings exactly. The way the first one crawls back and cowers is way too realistic, and the girls have suffered enough as it is. I'll be heroic and the game will be harder for it, which makes victory all the sweeter.Debatra said:
That said, I have actually played through it ONCE (of about five times) and harvested. I just didn't really watch...
Worth replaying at least twice.thaluikhain said:
Play it once as a LaCroix' buddy following his order, play it once as a rebel who betrays him at every point, and at least once as a Malkavian. The Malks have their own game here.
The only other Clan I like playing for a difference experience is Tremere (side with Strauss). There is also the option to side with the Kuei-Jin but that only changes the ending you get (and not to one I like). Alas Troika never got to fully flesh out the other clans... there's really not much difference playing Brujah, Gangrel, Ventrue etc. asides from a little dialogue here and there.
And oh man Bioshock's Little Sisters. I harvested one and that was so horrible I restarted the game and never did so again. They should have made it possible for Jack to become a psychopath (cackling laughter etc.), but as implemented it was impossible for me to justify harvesting them with the character I was playing.
I know it's a lame "Moral choice system," but saving the little sisters in Bioshock always just made more sense to me. After all, if I harvest the ADAM, I'll be pissing off Tennenbaum and doing the bidding of the final boss. However, if I rescue them, I'll still get the ADAM for the plasmids I want, and I get rewards of ADAM and free gene tonics for saving them all in each area. Just makes more sense to me.
