That doesn't neccesarily mean you can't become attached to them. I avoided killing anyone on my first playthrough of Oblivion because I kind of felt bad after murdering my first annoying beggar. Call me crazy (please do, I've gotten used to it). Ofcourse, on my second playthrough I got pissed of by there being almost no consequence if you could outrun the gaurds, and butchered everyone.SonOfVoorhees said:
Poll: Am I the only Morally motivated gamer out there?
- Thread starter CpT_x_Killsteal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends on the playthrough. The first time out, I try to take the good options, be a stalwart hero, all that stuff, but it's not without it's immoral side. Take the recent Fallout games. I didn't steal or shoot people that weren't shooting me, unless it was very clear that, given the chance, they would try to shoot me on sight. Raiders like to do that, so I quickly got a rifle that let me see them first. If there was a society to arrest them...well, I wouldn't kill as many, but the west wasn't won with kindness, and a blossoming civil society needs all the help it can get.
After that, I usually do an evil run, to see what it was like. After that, all bets are off, and I play however I like.
After that, I usually do an evil run, to see what it was like. After that, all bets are off, and I play however I like.
I'm always the best hero I can be in RPGs, be they Mass Effect, Fallout, Fable or TES. Ironically, though, I'm actually a quite amoral person in real life. Something about being immersed in a game makes me a better person, I don't know why.
![[REDACTED]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/129/129871.jpg?1621054700){kind=avatar}
I generally play a pragmatic villain. Since so many "evil" options in games are just pointlessly stupid or cruel, this means I usually play 100% heroic, at least until an interesting opportunity presents itself. For example, in Fallout 3 the game decided I wast the "Last, Best Hope of Mankind"... until I got the contract killer perk and started practicing my villainous one-liners and evil laugh with the best of them.
Truthfully, it depends on the day, and the choice. Like, I always preferred to rescue little sisters. However, if it comes down to killing an enemy or granting them mercy, I almost always prefer to kill them. In fact, I have in the past chosen this option even when it meant I got almost nothing, as opposed to a large reward.
Morality and ethics are burdening and senseless constructs imposed upon you by games. You can try to help people, but giving gold to beggars doesn't make you a better person, just encouraging them to beg more (a lot of these beggars are also in contact with the Thieves Guild, who have become even more unethical compared to how they were in Oblivion) and you just succeed in stroking your own ego of vapid self-righteousness. In fact, doing such acts can even be considered as a form of narcissism and on the grand scale of things don't really affect that of much the game except for creating a self delusional heroic light of yourself.
Evil acts maybe disgusting, but at least a majority of the players committing them don't have any delusions about themselves unlike these so called "heroes". Why should I have to pick either Nord or Imperial. Why I can't choose both, so I can manipulate them for my own personal gain and instead impose a solution unburdened by petty constructs such as "good" or "evil" and focus on the real problem that's plaguing Skyrim: the Thalmor. In the end, you should look out for yourself the most, since in the grand scheme of things, personal gain leads to more power which can be more constructive instead of indulging in useless and frivolous "acts of kindness".
Evil acts maybe disgusting, but at least a majority of the players committing them don't have any delusions about themselves unlike these so called "heroes". Why should I have to pick either Nord or Imperial. Why I can't choose both, so I can manipulate them for my own personal gain and instead impose a solution unburdened by petty constructs such as "good" or "evil" and focus on the real problem that's plaguing Skyrim: the Thalmor. In the end, you should look out for yourself the most, since in the grand scheme of things, personal gain leads to more power which can be more constructive instead of indulging in useless and frivolous "acts of kindness".
I think and do what I would do, usually it's zapping the shit out of people in KOTOR, but hey, I feel bad about it...maybe...usually no...ok its fucking hilarious
None of the above. In games with moral choice systems, I tend to want to try both routes, not just one.
... I tend to go with a good guy run through most games my first time through just so I can get an idea of what I can get away. Sadly my idea of "Evil" is "Total Genocide" and so a lot of games just do not allow for that, so I have to say i get stuck in these ruts of being a good guy a lot of the time just because it's too much of a pain in the ass to kill everyone in the world.
In the past I would have gone for evil first, but a lot of games punish you for my brand of crazygonuts killeveryone evil. The one who finally broke me from the whole Evil thing was Fallout. I still have a grudge against that game, but when I finally beat it with the bloody mess perk and going with a heavy unarmed character it was fun punching people into various degrees of PASTE.
As for moral choice systems like in ME, I generally will go evil, but I also keep around a good character, ya know in case there is someone in the story I don't absolutely hate. But that's just me. I end up playing a lot of villainous characters with no definable motivation to be as evil as they are. I honestly have started enjoying playing a GOOD character with very well defined motivations and characterization rather than the evil Mary sue that just goes around eating people for the fun of it.
In the past I would have gone for evil first, but a lot of games punish you for my brand of crazygonuts killeveryone evil. The one who finally broke me from the whole Evil thing was Fallout. I still have a grudge against that game, but when I finally beat it with the bloody mess perk and going with a heavy unarmed character it was fun punching people into various degrees of PASTE.
As for moral choice systems like in ME, I generally will go evil, but I also keep around a good character, ya know in case there is someone in the story I don't absolutely hate. But that's just me. I end up playing a lot of villainous characters with no definable motivation to be as evil as they are. I honestly have started enjoying playing a GOOD character with very well defined motivations and characterization rather than the evil Mary sue that just goes around eating people for the fun of it.
I always pick good, which oddly doesn't always coincide with what developers think is 'good.'
For example, putting someone out of their misery is morally correct (and to not do so would be straight-up evil), but sometimes this awards me evil points. The fuck?
Also, welcome to the Escapist!
For example, putting someone out of their misery is morally correct (and to not do so would be straight-up evil), but sometimes this awards me evil points. The fuck?
Also, welcome to the Escapist!
I almost always go good, and make the morally correct choices. When what those choices are is a challenge, it is particularly rewarding. Sometimes I make a conscious choice to play through as a bad guy, but I never think of it as my..."canon" playthrough.
However, honestly, what game offer a morally correct path that actually is more difficult? Frankly, rescuing little sisters might be MORE beneficial then harvesting, since you get huge chunks of adam, plus a lot of special plasmids and goodies. Actually, I would love a game where you can play through as a good guy and it is nothing except harder, but the acknowledgement that you did the right thing is its own reward: kind of like, you know...real life. Closest I can think of is a no kill playthrough of Deus Ex giving you an achievement. I'm proud of the fact that I took the harder path to spare lives: It gave the game infinitely more dramatic weight to know that I valued the lives of individuals. Except boss battles, because boss battles in Deus Ex apparently aren't allowed to do anything except piss in your proverbial cheerios.
Otherwise, I'm kind of sick of games with morality lessons presenting good and evil as equally challenging, equally rewarding, almost arbitrary, cosmetic choices. There is more to good and evil then that, games can explore the difference, and it seems to be anathema to modern game designs obsession with "Balance". Let me choose the moral high ground, make it harder, and let me feel more rewarded for doing so!
However, honestly, what game offer a morally correct path that actually is more difficult? Frankly, rescuing little sisters might be MORE beneficial then harvesting, since you get huge chunks of adam, plus a lot of special plasmids and goodies. Actually, I would love a game where you can play through as a good guy and it is nothing except harder, but the acknowledgement that you did the right thing is its own reward: kind of like, you know...real life. Closest I can think of is a no kill playthrough of Deus Ex giving you an achievement. I'm proud of the fact that I took the harder path to spare lives: It gave the game infinitely more dramatic weight to know that I valued the lives of individuals. Except boss battles, because boss battles in Deus Ex apparently aren't allowed to do anything except piss in your proverbial cheerios.
Otherwise, I'm kind of sick of games with morality lessons presenting good and evil as equally challenging, equally rewarding, almost arbitrary, cosmetic choices. There is more to good and evil then that, games can explore the difference, and it seems to be anathema to modern game designs obsession with "Balance". Let me choose the moral high ground, make it harder, and let me feel more rewarded for doing so!
Schindler's List is just a dancing array of tiny lights on a display screen. 1984 is just dye on tree pulp. Ode to Joy is just a bunch of frequencies. Sure, the fact that they are not real makes it totally morally acceptable to explore whatever actions tickles your fancy, but when you go into the space of a game, and operate on the assumption that these sprites carry moral weight, you can fill your escapism with learning things about both yourself and the real world. For that matter, if you couldn't at least hypothetically give moral weight to a thing you gleefully destroy, where's the fun in destroying it?SonOfVoorhees said:
Reads thread title
sighs
Looks like I'll be using this again.
To actually address the question though, being evil is cool in theory, but when you actually have to make the decision yourself it just seems like you're being a total jerk for no good reason. That's been my experience, and based on the poll and other posts in this thread it seems to be most other people's as well.
Well that just renewed my faith in humanity a tad bit.
sighs
Looks like I'll be using this again.
To actually address the question though, being evil is cool in theory, but when you actually have to make the decision yourself it just seems like you're being a total jerk for no good reason. That's been my experience, and based on the poll and other posts in this thread it seems to be most other people's as well.
Well that just renewed my faith in humanity a tad bit.
To be fair I almost always end up being evil first simply because I'm power hungry.
It's like with KotOR, I wasn't really trying actively to always make the worst, most scum like decisions, those particular decisions just happened to be the ones that got me the most exp, items ect.
Same with NWN.
Which was why I found it funny that someone said you generally get the best rewards for being good.
Not in my experience. I haven't played Infamous 2, but in 1, the good powers were far outclassed by the evil ones.
It's like with KotOR, I wasn't really trying actively to always make the worst, most scum like decisions, those particular decisions just happened to be the ones that got me the most exp, items ect.
Same with NWN.
Which was why I found it funny that someone said you generally get the best rewards for being good.
Not in my experience. I haven't played Infamous 2, but in 1, the good powers were far outclassed by the evil ones.
Yeah, I always play the good guy first, even on "renegade" playthroughs I struggle to keep it sadistically evil no matter the game.
I'm going to raise the ante here and say, if nobody else has yet, that I love being moral online too. Against decent players I will not play dirty and even when game-breaking exploits are available online, I will not touch them with a 10ft stick. I only bag in retaliation; I share power-weapons; I offer others the better vehicles; I never spawn trap - hell, the only thing I do that can be deemed as "dirty" is kill-stealing, but it's purely by accident (itchy trigger finger) and if I notice I'm doing it, I take a hit to my KD ratios so that my team mates can get some extra kills.
But if you're doing any of those against myself or others; my team, your team, our team or their team; I will use all my available skills and equipment to ruin your "fun" since you're likely ruining others - and that's fair nor is it cool.
I'm going to raise the ante here and say, if nobody else has yet, that I love being moral online too. Against decent players I will not play dirty and even when game-breaking exploits are available online, I will not touch them with a 10ft stick. I only bag in retaliation; I share power-weapons; I offer others the better vehicles; I never spawn trap - hell, the only thing I do that can be deemed as "dirty" is kill-stealing, but it's purely by accident (itchy trigger finger) and if I notice I'm doing it, I take a hit to my KD ratios so that my team mates can get some extra kills.
But if you're doing any of those against myself or others; my team, your team, our team or their team; I will use all my available skills and equipment to ruin your "fun" since you're likely ruining others - and that's fair nor is it cool.