Most Amoral Game Ever
- Thread starter Barciad
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Super Monkey Ball,
Trapping an ape in a ball for your own amusement is the promotion of animal cruelty to the masses.
Trapping an ape in a ball for your own amusement is the promotion of animal cruelty to the masses.
To me there is a distinction between games which are immoral (or which have immorality) and games which are amoral. To me any game with a morality or reputation slider is by definition not amoral, as its judging your actions as either moral or immoral. No matter how much evil twisted stuff a game like this lets you do, its doing it while consciously allowing you to go against what it defines as moral activity.
Something like Prototype, which was mentioned earlier, comes a bit closer. The game doesn't give a crap whether slciing up infected, slaughtering marines, racing around the city or butchering innocents in nasty ways for jollies (though you don't get xp for the latter). But the spread of the virus means you'll probably spend less time butchering people as you go on, which means the average player's experience will roughly fit the protagonist's developing morality in the storyline. I think. It would be clearer if the game's cinematics weren't rubbish.
For me, Civ IV is an amoral game, and do not lets its bright look fool you. Civ IV's range of civics (defining features of your nation) can be mixed and matched however you wish, and are only seperated by their effects and how they are unlocked. If the game distinguished moral and immoral, it would stop you taking a "good" civic like free religion with a "bad" one like police state, but it doesn't care (the fantasy mod fall from heaven does distinguish good and evil, and stops you taking good/bad combos). Most experinced Civ IV players go with slavery not because they want to be EEEEEVVVVILLLLL but because its very powerful if min/maxed. If something else becomes better, they'll take that.
Similarly, Civ IV's AI nations aren't concerned with good behaviour so much as they are with their own interests. You can be a huge militaristic dictatorship and beat on a tiny pacificist nation and the only nations that care will be the one you attacked and its friends. An AI's interests are not always rational (some are obsessed with religion, some hoard technologies to the point of self destruction) but they stick to them regardless of what is usually considered right or wrong. Its not until the UN comes in at the late game that a moral aspect emerges, where the world can be forced to take "good" civics or ban nukes, but even that reuquires a vote, so it needs not to conflict with the interests of the majority. Note this doesn't mean Civ IV's designers are amoral, they are merely presenting a view of international relations driven by power and self interest as opposed to what is right and wrong, hence making Civ IV an "amoral" game.
EDIT: an advantage of being an english major is you usually have a dictionary at hand. From a note in the compact oxford english:
USAGE: immoral is not the same as amoral. While immoral means "not following accepted standards of morality" amoral means "without morals"
Something like Prototype, which was mentioned earlier, comes a bit closer. The game doesn't give a crap whether slciing up infected, slaughtering marines, racing around the city or butchering innocents in nasty ways for jollies (though you don't get xp for the latter). But the spread of the virus means you'll probably spend less time butchering people as you go on, which means the average player's experience will roughly fit the protagonist's developing morality in the storyline. I think. It would be clearer if the game's cinematics weren't rubbish.
For me, Civ IV is an amoral game, and do not lets its bright look fool you. Civ IV's range of civics (defining features of your nation) can be mixed and matched however you wish, and are only seperated by their effects and how they are unlocked. If the game distinguished moral and immoral, it would stop you taking a "good" civic like free religion with a "bad" one like police state, but it doesn't care (the fantasy mod fall from heaven does distinguish good and evil, and stops you taking good/bad combos). Most experinced Civ IV players go with slavery not because they want to be EEEEEVVVVILLLLL but because its very powerful if min/maxed. If something else becomes better, they'll take that.
Similarly, Civ IV's AI nations aren't concerned with good behaviour so much as they are with their own interests. You can be a huge militaristic dictatorship and beat on a tiny pacificist nation and the only nations that care will be the one you attacked and its friends. An AI's interests are not always rational (some are obsessed with religion, some hoard technologies to the point of self destruction) but they stick to them regardless of what is usually considered right or wrong. Its not until the UN comes in at the late game that a moral aspect emerges, where the world can be forced to take "good" civics or ban nukes, but even that reuquires a vote, so it needs not to conflict with the interests of the majority. Note this doesn't mean Civ IV's designers are amoral, they are merely presenting a view of international relations driven by power and self interest as opposed to what is right and wrong, hence making Civ IV an "amoral" game.
EDIT: an advantage of being an english major is you usually have a dictionary at hand. From a note in the compact oxford english:
USAGE: immoral is not the same as amoral. While immoral means "not following accepted standards of morality" amoral means "without morals"
I thought super columbine was a not a very amoral game. It showed you just how bad and senseless the columbine massacre was.
Fable, Oblivion, again: not very amoralistic games. You can be very good in the game. Just because you can choose to be not good does not make it amoral. At best it makes the player amoral.
The most immoral games I've played are shadow of the colossus and edmund. No way to progress those games without doing serious harmful acts.
Fable, Oblivion, again: not very amoralistic games. You can be very good in the game. Just because you can choose to be not good does not make it amoral. At best it makes the player amoral.
The most immoral games I've played are shadow of the colossus and edmund. No way to progress those games without doing serious harmful acts.
You can't stick a grenade in a cats ass in that game. Throw a grenade at them, yes, put a grenade in it's ass, no. Although you can use them as a silencer for your shotgun and m16. But yes, I would agree Postal 2 is at the least the most shocking game I've ever played. It's everything people say is wrong with gaming wrapped into a neat little package, and it's damn fun.Monkeytacoz said:
Team Fortress 2. Cute 50's looking art brought to life in a game, but to quote the heavy, SO MUCH BLOOD!
I think Shadow of the Colossus. You wake up a giant, find some way to climb on top of it, then stab it repeatably. Also, it does get rather immoral when I imagine myself yelling out "Take you fucking medicine you little ****!" whenever I have trouble with a Colossus trying to throw me off of its back.
Me too, but from laughter.Sonicron said:
Most amoral game I played was ummmm, hmmmmm.... Well, I haven't played any completely fucked up games, but some of the choices you could make in Fallout 3 made me apathetic for a few days
EDIT: Almost forgot about
Clyde said:
Greedo or Han Solo, the world shall never know.ObnoxiousPotatoe said:
Anyway yeah Postal 2 is immoral but some of what makes a game fun is how much it pisses off the overly sensitive. If you can make someone at least mildly uncomfortable with a game then you have done a good job.
