Molyneux Says Americans Find it Harder to Be Evil

[Silva]

These statistics are made up. He hasn't sourced any research.

You gonna source your own claim for that or leave us hanging?

I don't need to point a source out to point out there aren't any - as a Wikipedian might say: "citation needed".

A sourceless claim of research is useless even if it is true, because no one will listen to it. I await a real study on how many people play "evil" in these games, or an announcement of such a study through the magazine.

I'm sure a staff member can enlighten me if Molyneux actually pointed out where any such statistics came from. At least, from what's been said in the comments in the entire thread, he didn't do so in the full text of the interview, so I won't need to read it. That's a load off of my mind.

 

[DragonsAteMyMarbles]

Being good in a Fable game is simply easier. In order to be evil, you have to actively go out and slaughter the inhabitants of a village or something. Whereas you get good points simply by killing things (bandits, zombies, whatever) which are generally trying to kill you anyway so it's in your own best interests to get rid of them.

And then in Fable 2 they got rid of one of my favourite pastimes - punching everyone who dared to come up to me and say "oh, oi've 'eard a lot about you", and standing in the middle of a town beating the hell out of a tree while people stood round and applauded because their retarded sheep-mentality AI wouldn't let them do anything else.
It was replaced by the opportunity to repeatedly whack a piece of iron for ages, all the while being told that I knew how to use a hammer. As if that kind of technical wizardry was in some way uncommon.

 

[LockHeart]

I find it incredibly hard to make evil choices in games, I'll do it then go and reload to a save before and follow the good path. I really don't know why I feel like that, I find it unbearable to kill Sims =/

 

[clicketycrack]

Because we Americans are just better people. That's why we dropped the nuke.

 

[katsa5]

*Sigh* Another American generalization. I would think Americans are more inclined to explore both.

 

[Amnestic]

*Sigh* Another American generalization. I would think Americans are more inclined to explore both.

Isn't that also a generalisation? Hypocrisy much...

 

[Iron Mal]

More likely, the evil choices in recent Peter Molyneux games have been unattractive weaksauce evil which has paltry rewards and significant penalties.

That's why I usually don't do the "evil" path in videogames, because it's usually shit.

This might be why the 'evil' statistics are quite low, these days evil simply isn't as rewarding.

Take the ending of Fable 2 for example, you choose to take a 'fuck everyone else' stance and all you get is a chest full of gold...this would be nice if it weren;t for the fact that a) with all the buildings and shops I own I have enough gold to buy everywhere in the game two times over and b) outside of more houses and clothes there isn;t actually much to spend your money on anyway.

As we can see, choosing to be evil has no benefit and actually has a penalty (people hate you and you lose your dog).

Being good had a simmilar problem (little benefit, people like you and you still have no dog).

Being good usually has a higher benefit (or at least a lower penalty) than being evil so this is often what most players will choose, it's simple psychology.

 

[katsa5]

*Sigh* Another American generalization. I would think Americans are more inclined to explore both.

Isn't that also a generalisation? Hypocrisy much...

^_^ Maybe. And you have no sense of humor.

 

[LtFerret]

Maybe because people don't like being evil becasue it's always cartoonishly evil

I hate that, if i'm slaughtering good guys i want a reason better then "for shits and giggles"

besides, good guys usaully get better rewards

 

[Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw]

Two Words

The Sims

Who here hasn't tortured someone?

Me, actually... well, not deliberately...

 

[salbarragan]

This is a goddamn outrage.
Does he have a dog?
I'm going to kill and eat his dog.

In front of his little girl.

...Does he have a little girl?
Man, this is a lot of work.

But I'll show him evil!
Even if I have to wait...

EDIT: Though I will admit, I find it easier to be a dick in real life than I do in game.
I'm not sure why.

LOL! So being good in a game is your form of escapism? I guess even emo kids have a rainbow day...

 

[soulasylum85]

i tend to take the survivalist approach. i do whatever benefits me the most, i really dont care what my karma is i just want to have the best stuff/most money.

 

[The Austin]

Because being evil is hard.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

Please who actually believes ANYTHING Molyneux says anymore? This came out his arse, just like Fables "huge expansive world," and "ground breaking gameplay," and Milo. In fact Milo probably told him this shit.

 

[Video Gone]

Where does he get these numbers? I get all my fun in these games from being an evil dick with no regard for anyone else.

I get all my fun in those games from being worse than hitler, on a bad day. I'd post an example, but it would probably scar one of the escapist's more sensitive users for the rest of their life.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[Video Gone]

Please who actually believes ANYTHING Molyneux says anymore? This came out his arse, just like Fables "huge expansive world," and "ground breaking gameplay," and Milo. In fact Milo probably told him this shit.

Damn that Milo. It's interrogatin' time, boys. Draw a shotgun on a piece of paper and then hand it to him, actually. See what he says.
"It's a symbol of great peace and prospe- Sarah Connor?"

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[Video Gone]

More likely, the evil choices in recent Peter Molyneux games have been unattractive weaksauce evil which has paltry rewards and significant penalties.

That's why I usually don't do the "evil" path in videogames, because it's usually shit.

This might be why the 'evil' statistics are quite low, these days evil simply isn't as rewarding.

Take the ending of Fable 2 for example, you choose to take a 'fuck everyone else' stance and all you get is a chest full of gold...this would be nice if it weren;t for the fact that a) with all the buildings and shops I own I have enough gold to buy everywhere in the game two times over and b) outside of more houses and clothes there isn;t actually much to spend your money on anyway.

As we can see, choosing to be evil has no benefit and actually has a penalty (people hate you and you lose your dog).

Being good had a simmilar problem (little benefit, people like you and you still have no dog).

Being good usually has a higher benefit (or at least a lower penalty) than being evil so this is often what most players will choose, it's simple psychology.

I couldn't believe that I could only get back my dog by choosing the nuetral option. Gold, dog, gold, dog... I went for the dog, cos he's so awesome.