Molyneux Says Americans Find it Harder to Be Evil

[2012 Wont Happen]

Let me put it this way: Grand Theft Auto not having children makes me sad.

Kids would be more fun to kill.

I'll have to make do with stuffing a live grenade in a kid's pocket in Fallout 2 and getting to safety before the giggles make me fall over.

you can kill kids in FO2?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I think Molyneux is losing it because I also thought the bit with the dog was clearly defined as the neutral choice (it also brings your loved ones back, but not the legions of anonymous innocents). If I understand what he's saying the bit where you let everyone die but take a fortune in gold WASN'T evil?

That said I do see his point though, because I also chose to save the vast majority of people.

HOWEVER, I have also long said that one of the "weaknesses" of America is that we're just too good for this world. Too moral to do what needs to be done and see to our own interests. In the overall scheme of things it's sad for me to say it but I guess I'm pretty evil. Like most evil people though I believe I'm that way for the right reasons .

America is one of the most evil and imperialistic and evil countries in the world today

 

[MR.Spartacus]

I find it to sometimes be difficult to be evil but it depends on the game. For instance being evil in Fable is a breeze as it's impossible to care about the characters. Whereas being evil in Infamous is also easy because you get better powers. Wait scratch that first line now that I think of it being evil is piss easy and just in general more fun. And for the record I mean being truly evil not just a psychotic meathead that kills anything that moves.
Although that's Fable's definition of evil.

 

[ckam]

Well that does explain the "Knight Templar" image that Westerners make for themselves.

 

[Spudgun Man]

I find that very hard to belive, maybe he'll be saying that buddists are renowned car theives next.

 

[ShadowLuigi147]

I find that very hard to belive, maybe he'll be saying that buddists are renowned car theives next.

Well, they are....

 

[v3n0mat3]

I'll show him I'm evil!

Hey. Peter. Fable II was mediocre! *runs away, laughing maniacally*

 

[Rigs83]

I don't think Americans are not that into being evil because we like to delude ourselves in lies first so we can morally justify why we do the horrible things we do every day.

 

[SplattererRoss]

I am mostly good in games but not because of me being American or not. Everybody knows that in most* games good reaps huge rewards and being bad gives you pocket change.

*The exceptions off the top of my head would be KotOR (This comic explains it best http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/7/28/) and Oblivion because you don't really have huge differences between good and evil.

u know statistickly 90% of statistics are false

I see what you did there!

 

[DMShade]

Of ALL my friends who played the Original Fable that I polled...I was the only one who was Good his first playthrough.

And I still stole stuff when then opportunity arose.

But then, we're all Canadian. Can we be that different?

 

[literallyanythingelse]

I say he's lying about this one. If the current games of today has taught (Bioshock espicially) it pays off more to be good than evil in a game that offers moral choice. Due to endings or bonus weapons or what not.

Multiple endings just piss me off. I just play through once, inevitably get the evil ending (no matter if I went through a "good" phase or not) and watch the other endings on youtube. Sorted.

 

[toapat]

Two Words

The Sims

Who here hasn't tortured someone?

the novelty of that wears off pretty quick.

i think it might be because they didnt put rewarding evil points as high as being good points.
if there is one thing i have found, Superman gets a nod and a handshake when he saves the world now, while when he does something evil, no one either can look away, or forget that

 

[Unit Alpha]

I too wonder what he's basing his 10% numbers on. Perhaps people who chose the greedy wish at the end of Fable 2 rather than the 'neutral' or 'good' ones and then scanning their Fable 2 achievements once they're connected to Xbox Live?

If so, it seems like a pretty silly way to judge numbers. Money was ridiculously easy to make in Fable 2 and the 'greedy' option was just a way to save time. Choosing the 'Neutral' option offered more in game rewards and is arguably the more logical one. Evil =/= Stupid.

Okay, I actually read the article and it says:

Spoiler: Fable 2 Ending

His comments were on the last choice you make in Fable II, where the player essentially has to choose between sacrificing all his/her companions -- include his/her canine buddy -- or a large amount of people. Molyneux said that he "did have hate mail from people" who couldn't bring themselves to sacrifice the multitudes, and chose the other path.

Wow, so saving your doggy friend was the 'evil' choice? And only 10% of Americans took it? I find that very hard to believe Mr. Molyneux. Very hard indeed.

The dog was the evil choice?! Crap.

I personally thought that was the Neutral choice. It was in the middle, it was neither saintly (resurrecting all the dead peoples who you never met) or 'evil' (choosing money over others).

Apparently it was Evil though. I don't see it myself, but whatever...

Oh, phew. I thought I was just an abnormally evil git for a minute.

Wow, resurrecting your dog/sister is the evil choice... so that means taking the money was neutral... now THAT'S weird.

 

[EliteDave725]

As an American, the novelty of being evil in the Fable games is short-lived for me because:

A.) Most of the AI will treat you as just a colossal bastard rather than an avatar of terror and violence (especially in The Lost Chapters).

B.) It has no effect on the world around you. You could sacrifice, murder, steal, and become so evil that Satan will ascend from the pits of Hell just to lick your boots and it will have no major effect on the environment.

 

[Scrythe]

Apparently Molyneux lives in his own fantasy world, one where Bioshock, Fallout 3, and Bioware games don't exist, because I have yet to meet anyone who plays good over evil in those titles.

Besides, "good" and "evil" are just relative terms. What if I lived in a society that honestly believed there was nothing wrong with drowning kittens? Does that still make me evil? To you, yes, but only because you feel otherwise.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to give my cat a bath.

 

[nohorsetown]

I usually choose "good". Yeah, I'm from the USA. "Evil" is almost always silly and for-its-own-sake in games, which hardly ever exists in the real world. And the rewards are generally better with the good path.

I think the whole system stinks. Good and Evil? Again? Fuck that shit. Gimme X factions with unique worldviews, all of which might be "right" and "good". I'll align with one or more of them, and that shit will clash, and it will be epic and I will be good and they will be evil, cuz it makes sense with my character's beliefs. And then maybe I'll honest-to-goodness wanna play the game again with a different faction/ideology, cuz the game'll be, like, smart and stuff.

But yeah, the game will have to actually *be* smart and stuff. You can't wimp out with a blue-to-red slider bar. All X factions better give convincing arguments. The dialogue will have to be believable, and there will have to be a lot more of it, to cover the different permutations. Since everything has to be voice-acted nowadays, it'll take an immense amount of resources and time to get that together. If it takes too long in development, the graphics will be like totally made of fail, bro, when the game finally comes out. It won't sell, and bleh, scratch that, it will never get made, not anymore. Unless it's art, for free.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

I'm always evil and it is extremely easy for me.

 

[death525]

I always choose evil for my first playthrough. Peter, it is not research to post random numbers.