well they could easily get the stats from xbox live achievements, it's not hard for them to look at who got what achievements and where they are from and then base the stats off of that
how is it stupid? it's a pretty reliable way of getting info and people wouldn't get skewed information.
also it stops people from saying "oh yeah i'm evil in the game" and then playing a goody two shoes all the time. it will actually get what they are doing in the game and not what they are claiming
That should be the ultimate question, most people have at some point played any Sims game, so that would work...
Personally, I once made a family of eight identical people and put them in one room (The Cell), sharing one toilet (Of course noone used it as they don't go when someone is in the same room unless it's a partner), I made the last one a serious guy, who would come in with a plate of food every night for them, of course some never got food, and it was old by the time they ate... safe to say, that was seven tomb stones outside relatively quickly... XD;
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 .
The point of the above statement however is not for me to go Emo and self-depreciating, but rather to make the point that I think one of the reasons why you don't see more people going the "bad" route in RPGs especially in America is that the evil choices usually make no sense other than being malevolent for the sake of malevolece. Even in games like Mass Effect (where the Renegade path is also sort of 'good' in the end) the bad choices in the 'here and now' generally amount to being an unrealistically malevolent, puppy kicking jerk.
Really the only moral desician in a game that gave me pause in recent years was probably the situation in "The Pitt" (Fallout 3). In that case I understood the point of view from both sides, as well as the overall morality. Like MANY people I took the "evil" path there feeling that it was indeed the right desician in the long run even if it was the bad thing to do under the current situation.
This in comparison to say most games that might give you a choice like "pet the kitten and give it a treat" and "put the kitten in the microwave and make it explode while laughing malevolently". The neutral choice being to just leave the kitten to it's own devices or whatever. In the case of the evil choice other than maybe some dark chuckles (before you reload your game) you have to ask yourself "why the heck would I do something like that?".
In the end though I expect we might see a lot more people going evil in the upcoming Star Wars MMO. Not only is there Sith mania, but also the fact that like many people I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that the Jedi are not allowed to love, but the Sith are, with love being defined as a negative thing. One of those "WTF" elements from the Star Wars prequels that really bothered me. In general I agree with the Jedi more and will probably play one (as my opinions IRL aside, I really WANT to be a good guy), despite them being doomed at the conception stage to be underpowered compared to 'Sith Chic', and apparently treating love like a bloody Anathma.
At any rate given a true range of options in a game I'd generally come down on the "good" side of things overall, but be fairly close to the middle I'd imagine given the way I'd *LIKE* to react in a lot of these moral choice games.
Bad things are done for a reason, evil in most games (including Fable 2) is simply meaness for the sake of meaness.
I think he meant most people didn't take the money ending, either at first or at all, and there's a reason for that: by the time you get to that point in the game, money's fucking useless, and a pile of cash won't tempt you as much as your dog and i guess your sister might.
I, myself, have yet to take anything but the good ending, but this is because i'm too fucking lazy to play through the game three times, and have only played half-way through it on my second go. I haven't played it months, either, so odds are i'll never actually get all three endings.
Now when they say Americans I'll assume they mean people from the U.S.A and not North America. Anyway if I were in the U.S.A, I would certainly be one of those 10%. That being said....where did he get the numbers? Because that doesn't seem right. Even for Japan, 40% still seems low.
This cant be true... has he been engaged in conversation with a Republican American on CoD4? They say some pretty evil things, I mean come on! Who whispers "I am gonna rape you, oh I'm gonna rape you!" down the mic? Thats just disturbing.
Then that's obviously the ten percent he is talking about. That or they don't play the game. Also, don't group me in with those assholes, I never act like that in an online game.
Amnestic said:
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:
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.
In games like Fable and Fable 2, I try my hardest to hit both extremes. I go to evil first, because I like having a good character. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but I like having a saint as a main character rather than the reincarnation of Adolf.
Amnestic said:
Wow, so saving your doggy friend was the 'evil' choice?
But I guess I'm an evil b*stard then. I couldn't continue on with the game without my canine companion, my furry friend, my Rover roamer, my... okay I'll stop.
Maybe is because the Japanese and Europeans are nicer in real life and so find it easier to be evil in a fantasy construct whereas Americans are always trying to appear good in most fantasy media (just look at all the war films making Americans out as big heroic saviours), as opposed to real life where there being dicks. Or it could be that Molyneux is just pulling crap out of thin air. Both are good.
I can see the sense (and probable accuracy) in both suggestions there.
Personally, I tend to hate the good or evil choices because of how careless implimented and blatantly black and white they tend to be. I'd much rather a game that let me do the "Sam Vines" style of lawful good or a super villan with good PR and loads of friends than the silly doormat or badly written serial killer choices you tend to get.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
