Poll: Am I the only Morally motivated gamer out there?

[Comando96]

I will try to get the most items out of my game however if presented with the options: be a **** OR walk away empty haned but the village is alive then I will choose the latter.

I mean if the people I just saved can pay me, then I will get paid and make them pay as much as they can afford but if they have nothing then the other folks I have saved in the past will make up for this lot infront of me freeloading

 

[Bloodtrozorx]

I selected the "prick" option because quite frankly I enjoy it. I work in an office environment and spend my day being nice, on the phone, in person just being nice. When I get home I fire up Skyrim/Fallout/GTA/Red Dead Redemption and do evil. I enjoy it. Yes I have "Hero" playthroughs but being evil is just such a good release.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

In most games I'll do a 'good' runthrough first and then consider an evil one after that.

Pretty much the same here, with a few adaptations along the line of the kind/hard-hearted mercenary thrown in to fill in the moral grey area.

EDIT - Welcome aboard, OP. The crackers and dips are complimentary but please bring your own beverage.

 

[kasperbbs]

I always play as the 'good guy' for some reason and in most cases it pays off. By sparing some npc's you might get an extra quest from him later on or some item as a reward, but in mass effects case i tend to be both, it just feels good to push someone out the window sometimes for being an asshole or to punch an annoying reporter in the face, headbutting a krogan is entertaining too..

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Given the choice between killing a little girl or missing out on one situationally useful ability like shooting bees from my outstretched hand, it's not much of a question.

I can shoot bees out of my hand? That is definitely not a question at all. BEES FOR EVERYONE!

More seriously, I'm playing a character in a game as good, evil, or anything in between (or off to the sides, for that matter). I'm playing a character, after all, not myself. When a game does let me choose how to handle things, I generally decide either early on or before I start playing some basic things about the character's personality (which can change a bit over time based on their experiences in-game), and I try make decisions based on that. The game is telling a story about that character and their actions, not about me, and I can comfortably remain both involved enough to stay invested in it and detached enough to be aware that I'm not the one doing anything I might not personally agree with. I mean, what do people think actors and writers and people like that do?

 

[Odbarc]

I'm a good person in real life. I prefer to play the dark (usually most rewarding) side first.
Then play the good-guy.

Generally, I prefer to play my good-guy as a female to contrast my male-evil.

 

[Weaver]

We have a saying around here:
"You're never the only one".

 

[eternal-chaplain]

I just mix it up; I mean if a game offers me the ability to play different roles, I'll really juts pick whatever I feel like. Some times I even try playing a game by switching back and forth between the two camps of morality constantly (though in a lot of games, you don't get very far unless you're like full-on good or evil).

 

[Breywood]

I usually play a "goodie two shoes." I like being able to make the "world" a better place for everyone because I can't do it so easily in real life.

 

[King of Asgaard]

I have the same problem; I really can't make myself take the evil option unless I really push myself to be absolutely evil all the time in game. If I try to create a character who's mostly evil but still reasonable (ie. sane) then more often than not they come off as neutral or still comparatively nice. I think the only games where I've properly gone full evil is Knights of the Old Republic one and two, although I was a fair bit younger then.

EDIT: Oh, except for games where being evil is pretty much part of the whole thing, like Prototype, Saints Row and GTA. I can quite happily act like a psychopath in those.

I do what gets me the most loot.
Why?
Because it's a game.
I don't act in games the way I do in real life, because if I did, I would be killed by a lone wolf in the tutorial level. I find it impossible to role-play in games because IRL I'm a spineless wimp, so in a virtual world, I'm the biggest douche who ever existed.

Not that I'm criticising your choice, but... Why is fictional loot better than fictional morals?

It's just the way I rationalise. They're not real people, so I don't care about them. The loot at least grants a reward aspect to doing things. NPCs I couldn't care less about.
Just to clarify, I thought about it, and I do very occasionally do what I think is right when dealing with NPCs that I like. Case in point: [Skyrim spoilers]

Spoiler

Paarthurnax in Skyrim. I refused to kill him even though doing so would have gotten me benefits from the Blades because I genuinely liked him. In fact, I was lukewarm towards the Blades before, but their request made me sever all ties to them, as well as FUS RO DA-ing them off a mountain.

 

[Fuhrlock]

I'm pretty varried in choosing between the 'good' and 'bad' options which is why I was so glad they just combined them in ME3 so you didn't have to play as either extreme. I just tend to play by what feel most satisfying to the story and failing that which provides the greater benefits (in either the short or long term), and I end up being chaotic drifting from good to neutral or evil.

Unfortunately for the purpose of games too many morality systems are black and white, claiming one side is 'good' and the other 'evil' and failing to factor in perspective. Eg in ME2 why is rewriting the geth a paragon option? You could argue that is nicer than destorying them (arguable since the act would be akin to brainwashing in organics) but even if that were the case it would only reflect as a less 'evil' thing to do and not a 'good' thing.

Also on a similar not games shouldn't give 'good guy' credit if in dialogue you made it perfectly clear you are only doing something for the reward and not because you think it is the morally correct thing to do.

Fundementally I find morality systems in games far to underdeveloped often pushing the player to absolutes (or assessing their action in terms of absolutes) and I much prefer when a game doesn't tell you if an action is good or evil and its' consequences allow you to decide (either directly seen consequences or change in character approval such as in DA:O). Because ultimately I don't enjoy playing the absolutely selfless hero or the 'just because I'm evil motivated villian', so I guess on the polls scale that makes me the third category.

 

[Souplex]

You are never the only one, ever.
Ever.
Most people try to be good in games for their first run at least.
Second run is when you get to be evil and go nuts.

 

[HigherTomorrow]

I played through the Mass Effect trilogy doing options that seemed right to me. 99% were Paragon, and a few funny ways of dealing with bastards were Renegade. I tend to be the same in a lot of things: Mostly good, with a playful evil side when dealing with assholes.

Also, there are some games when the narrative could decide your actions. Example, I have never, ever, ever once played an Outlaw playthrough of Red Dead. It didn't make sense. At all. And I always try to play Metal Gear games, at least one playthrough, without killing a single soul, because early on it is stressed to you that it's a sneaking mission and you shouldn't have to kill anyone.

 

[Naeras]

Depends on the moral depth involved in the question or action being asked. If the options are simply to a) give a kid candy, or b) set his cat on fire, I don't care much about the question, because there are no shades of gray involved here. Games that do moral questions properly, however, will actually make me consider the actions I do. And I'll usually pick the nicer options.

The prime example of this done right, imo, is the sidequest in Deus Ex: Human Revolution where you're investigating a blackmail slash drug theft-case. I ended up doing the case in a slightly more complicated manner than I necessarily had to. Other than that I'm not going to spoil it, but it was one of those video game moments that really got me thinking about right and wrong, and I ended up doing what I thought was the right thing to do here.

 

[Rangerboy87]

Welcome to the jungle!!

I'm more of a good guy in most games. First playthrough, I am always taking the good options. So yes, I am morally motivated.

However, I still like to go back on the second playthrough and play as a baddie to see the difference. I do this to almost all games (Mass Effect Series, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, ect.). I think my one exception was Bioshock. After taking the good options, I just couldn't make myself go back and be evil. Just couldn't murder the little sisters. Just messed with my morality too much.

 

[Rednog]

I tend more towards evil actions in real life, but in games I tend to go for the good choices just because most games they actually tend to reward good actions more. Like in your poll, while you do get instant adam in bioshock by harvesting, the gifts received by the saved girls far out weigh the adam you get from harvesting.

 

[Neonit]

i usually do two playthroughs - start as "what would i do" so screw all the "morality points", because i NEVER had a game where i had full 100% one way or another - see mass effect where i usually end fifty-fifty.
and then comes the second playthrough where i try to BREAK the game by being basically a diabolical reincarnation of hitler whose diet consist solely out of puppies.

but generally i try to be the good one, without being.... naive, for lack of better word. so if i have a chance to blow up a group of enemies in a "non-conventional" way - so be it. and if i get to rage at an insult made by an npc - well, it IS fun to rage......

 

[ProtoChimp]

This is my first post on Escapist so I'll try not to screw around.

When I browse through forums, articles, interviews and the like, I find that, nine times out of ten, when it comes to morality that I'm usually alone. I've always chosen to be the good guy and not ask for a reward at the end of it when possible. When it comes to Skyrim I think I've given at least 150 gold coins to beggars (you can only give one at a time) on completely separate occasions. I can't even stomach doing a second play through being a baddie.

But when I take a look the previously mentioned articles, it tells me that almost all gamers are bad. So I was wondering if anyone else out there is somewhat similar to me if I'm just a weirdo.



Edit: Amazed I got feedback so quickly

THANKS FOR THE WARM WELCOMES!

I'm the same. I was kind of a psycopath serial killer in fallout 3 though, like I'd be nice to every one and do the nice thing in public but when I'd find someone out on their own like a super mutant hostage... well I'd save them and untie them, kill the mutants... and then hunt them down. I didn't really care, but a year later I had to reload a save cos I felt really, like really bad that I killed an innocent person. Unless the good option doesn't make any sense.