I generally try to do what I would IRL, which is usually the good choice.
Unless someone pisses me off.
Unless someone pisses me off.
Poll: Moral Choices
- Thread starter Kombatkid123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When I like a character I'm good.
When I dislike a character I kill them immediately in the most amusing fashion available.
When I dislike a character I kill them immediately in the most amusing fashion available.
Lol yeah....this is out of the moral thing (sorta)...but when I get done with a game and I'm supremely bored, if an NPC stands still and does nothing but make annoying commentary, I jury rig explosives around them (i.e. Fallout 3/ Mr. Tenpenny+30 bottle cap mines= hilarity). But that's post game after everything else is done. Save and then go wild. Reload when doneAmphoteric said:
It depends alot on the game, in Old Republic I felt like a total ass when i did the evil option. But for fable I just ran around killing gaurds for teh lulz.
I had always been a goodie two shoes when I play games like those during the first time. Not sure why I always choose good maybe I always picture the character I'm controlling to be the ideal hero.
No it doesn't. It offers horrible choices between dark gray/black/or totally unknowable, and makes foreseeing the consequences and "planning" the game nearly impossible.TheIronRuler said:
That said it is still really good and people should buy it
I disagree.MisterShine said:No it doesn't. It offers horrible choices between dark gray/black/or totally unknowable, and makes foreseeing the consequences and "planning" the game nearly impossible.TheIronRuler said:
That said it is still really good and people should buy it
The game offers you choices based on YOUR morality and how YOU, the PLAYER percieve it.
YOU may percieve the Scoi'tel a threat and the rebellion something to be stopped, all the while you search for your loved one.
On the other hand you may think that all non-humans should live equally among the other humans, noble or peasant, all the while looking for the man that once knew you with a history to share with you.
But you should still Buy The Witcher 2.
Buy the Witcher 2.
I'm always Evil.
I'd prefer is if there were more moral choices where I have to think.
And by think, I mean think about which action will bring the most suffering in the long term.
Unfortunately, most of the time it's one disgustingly good choice and one evil choice which is usually just some instant deaths and no choices which will cause neverending suffering for generations to come.
I'd prefer is if there were more moral choices where I have to think.
And by think, I mean think about which action will bring the most suffering in the long term.
Unfortunately, most of the time it's one disgustingly good choice and one evil choice which is usually just some instant deaths and no choices which will cause neverending suffering for generations to come.
Usually evil. Sometimes, even while trying, I can't not be evil, for example, in inFamous, I actually tried to be good on my first run. Couldn't do it. Too hard not to zap random passerbys.
Dark gray or black? Are you somehow implying that The Witcher 2's choices are all evil?MisterShine said:No it doesn't. It offers horrible choices between dark gray/black/or totally unknowable, and makes foreseeing the consequences and "planning" the game nearly impossible.TheIronRuler said:
That said it is still really good and people should buy it
I'm glad someone gave the witcher's examples before I did
That's how I like my moral choices. You shouldn't foresee the results immediately and they don't always have to be good/evil.
This actually brings me back to the original Fallout. Bit of a spoiler here.
In a town called Junktown, you could choose to help Gizmo, a mobster who runs a casino, or Killian Darkwater, the town mayor.
Gizmo was, in lack of a better word, an asshole. He was involved in all kinds of shady business, used a gang to beat up people and was planning to assassinate Killian to take over the town.
Killian, on the other hand, was an all-right fellow. He was fair and had the town's best interest in mind.
In the originally planned ending, if you helped Killian, he would eventually turn into a benign dictator who would eventually become the cause of the destruction of the town.
However, if you had sided with Gizmo, his shady business would eventually make the town flourish dispite the his self-centered reasons.
Unfortunatelly, the endings were changed because Interplay figured they'd send a bad message.
But you know what they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This would be the kind of moral choices I'd like to see in gaming.
And, before I forget, I completely forgot to comment something that was mentioned a few posts back:
Yeah, most developers don't know how to make evil look interesting. For them, evil means Cahotic Stupid apparently.
**EDIT: Oh, and could someone remind me if there was a Neutral path in The Witcher? I can't seem to remember
Saddly, I'm still clinning to "the old ways" when you did a lot better playing the good guy than the evil SoB. Exp is everything! Nowadays, luckyly, the evil and also neural choice will gain you the same exp and similar prices, but NWN and it's predecessors preferred the "good" alignment. Or atleast they assumed you plyed by the rules... Now, in a "moral choise game", I try to pass it with flying lawfull good colors and then, the second time, go evil, all the time, all the way. Sad really: Bad is always the more enjoyable way.
I disagree with your disagreement.TheIronRuler said:
Iorveth is accused of killing many humans for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and when asked he makes no pretense at denying he will do anything for elvish freedom, no matter who gets trampled underneath. Roche likewise admits to several political assassinations to help further the goals of King Foltest and the Blue Strips seem to be a fantasy version of a wetworks squad.
Every major character in this game could easily be the villain in any other game, outside of the dragon perhaps and some of the dwarves in chapter 2. Even Triss and Dandelion. Though in his case it would only be if the game was about trying to protect your daughter from some kind of VD.
But you should totally still buy the Witcher 2.
Yeah, I think how the game presents and executes its choices is really good too, I was just being a little obtuse with IronRuler for A. Discussion and B. Humor.Nulmas said:Dark gray or black? Are you somehow implying that The Witcher 2's choices are all evil?
I'm glad someone gave the witcher's examples before I did
That's how I like my moral choices. You shouldn't foresee the results immediately and they don't always have to be good/evil.
Also in TW1 there IS a neutral path, but in TW2 its not that simple.
This, if I go for a certain alignment in almost any game, I will lean more to the good side of that alignment, Unless I actually focus, I cannot play pure evil, but if I just play, I almost always get the most good alignment possibleZhukov said:
Yes, but that's the point. Most other games tend to downplay those factors, even games without moral choices.MisterShine said:
Wait, scratch that... I said games, I should have said stories.
For example, Star Wars. Man, the Rebels are just as bad as the Imperials. The only difference is that they show all the Rebels as noble heroes and all the Imperials as cartoony villains. The whole conflict is way more shades of gray than the movies show.
Another example of a good moral choice is in Mass Effect 2 (another SPOILER here, people).
When you have to choose if you kill or reprogram the Geth, you're an asshole either way. The only "right" choice would be to let them go on their way but even if you do that, you're being an asshole to your own people. Even the conflict against the Reapers stands on a gray area. I mean, what are they doing that we don't do ourselves to animals?
My point is, the difference isn't exactly the choice you're given; just the point of view you're being shown.
**EDIT: Oh, I missed the part of your post directed to me. I see what you're doing there. Well done, sir, well done
I do think that not having a neutral path is bullshit, but on the othr hand the GAME CHANGES COMPLETELY BASED ON YOU CHOICE.MisterShine said:
It's not that you use different abilities in InFamous 2, but the second chapter changes COMPLETELY!
You're right, that's the reason why I helped the dragon as best as I could. I could barely manage two playthroughs with roche with I did maybe five with the Dragon. The reason? She's hot. Also see "Lesbomancy".
C'mon, mate - "Lesbomancy"! That can be the sole reason for buying the witcher 2!
On anothe note, Buy the Witcher 2.