Poll: Would you play as a truly appalling person in a game?

[pierre666lol]

No I would not.

Being pure evil is in my opinion very one-dimensional, just as much as being pure good. I guess a lot of people like me lose interest after a while - it's just simply difficult to identify with them. Morally "grey" characters always seem to generate a buzz; perhaps like them we are imperfect and we can relate to them.

However; if you are looking for some fairly horrible human beings in gaming - Kane and Lynch: Dead men; has an outstanding "evil" protagonist. You rob a bank, kill innocents, stage a kidnap, hunt relentlessly for revenge alongside other dark deeds in the name of a daughter who despises you.

 

[Splitzi]

I would play out any of OP's scenarios except #3. That crosses every line I could possibly draw.

But other than that I will always be interested in playing a well crafted story with great characters.

 

[kommando367]

I don't really care about characters or story as long as the gameplay is fun.

 

[DoPo]

No. I don't like Kratos at all, and thus I have stayed far away from the God of War series. After hearing that he grabs some innocent person and shoves them in a gear just to get it to stop, I'm glad I stayed away.

I can honestly say, you have not missed much. I played all of them (in a manner of speaking - me and my housemate did taking turns. I also didn't take that many turns. Still, I observed and had some experience). In the first game, Kratos is actually an OK character - motivated by violence, vengeance and bloodlust, sure, but at least there is some degree of understanding why that is. Also, he shows emotions other than anger. Not many, but he shows remorse and grief for a bit over his dead family.

Spoiler

Which even gives out why he is so motivated by vengeance. Here is a summary of the plot - Kratos was a Spartan general fighting in some barbarians (or something) but they manage to take him down and when it seems like the battle is lost, Kratos prays to Ares, the god of war, promising him anything to not let this be the end. Ares actually hears his plea and decides to grant him his wish, if Kratos agrees to serve as Ares' personal warlord. Faced with a choice between death and something like a deal with the devil, Kratos gladly takes up Ares' offer. The battle is not lost and now Kratos serves Ares - blindly following all of his orders which are about waging war, death and destruction. Kratos even revels in it as he becomes an extention of Ares' will. One day, he is ordered to destroy the temple of one of the other deities (I think it was Atina) - Kratos does so slaughtering everybody who comes in his way not caring, not even seeing who they are - women and children included - empowered by Ares and the almost battle trance he has been steadily developing following the god's commands.

Two figures in particular we should not here - a defenceless mother and her daughter who had hidden in the temple from the battle outside and whose blood Kratos spilled as readily as taht of any soldier. Those were his own wife and child. Ares tricked him into killing them, to shape him into the most ruthless instrument of war. As the temple burns down, and Kratos realises the horrific truth, priestess the of the temple (who I think was Atina herself) curses him to carry the shame of this day for an eternity.

His skin is not originally pale white. These are actually the ashes of Kratos' own family forever bonded with him to always remind him of what he had lost.

It is no surprise then he feels so bitter and hates Ares so much, spending the entire first game on a quest to end him.

In fact, I must say, the first game had a really, really good ending. The final battle against Ares is grand - there is a physical confrontation when they whack each other with weapons, sure, but the true beauty comes in a later stage of the battle which is inside Kratos' mind. In there, Kratos sees his wife and child again, both cowering in a temple, while many copies of Kratos come and try to kill them. You, the real Kratos try to defend your family from your worst fear - yourself. Not only that but the battle takes its toll and the landscape starts dissolving around you leaving Kratos with less and less choice and freedom, just like his servitude under Ares did when his life was devoted to just that fighting. And the most powerful part in that battle, I think, while you have to protect your family from being killed, it's not a simple "HP bar runs out - you lose" thing, you can heal them by stopping the violence to...lovingly embrace the two.


Notice how Kratos is literally giving his live for them - the health restored to them is taken from his health bar.

But while in the first game Kratos could be justified to an extent for causing so much mayhem, the same cannot really be said about the next two games. At some point Kratos just...stops having any emotions other than anger and any facial expressions except a frown and a snarl. Anybody, anybody, he meets suddenly becomes a vessle for him to take out his anger on - anger that is not exactly clear WHY is present. Seriously, to say they didn't deserve it is an understatement - Kratos just acts as a total psychopath and it is as if the entire first game just...didn't happen or something. It is, in fact, almost comic when in the third game Kratos spends a lot of time tracking down and trying to save a character. He then shows slightly different emotions than anger but only very slightly. And I'm not exactly sure why that arc happened considering his acting so far. It came out of nowhere and...well, led nowhere, to be honest.

Hell no.

So by the end of the game the scumbag will be victorious? I never want that, especially if I'm the one which allowed that to happen.

Well, it is possible you lose in the end. That would be an interesting take on it.

Spoiler: Something about Dishonored

I quite liked the final level of Dishonored. It varies depending on how "good" (or low chaos) or "evil" (high chaos) you were. Both of these options are just different shades of grey so far in the game, but the final level really shows the contrast - in both cases, you need to save the child but if you've had a low chaos run, it's a peaceful(-ish) looking scenery, with the sun shining and everything seeming normal. The kidnappers of the child literally provide no resistance when you get to them and she is safe and sound when you reach her. In the high chaos ending, though, you arrive at the level and it's night, there is a storm - everything looks gloomy and vicious. The guards are on high alert and with right, for the kidnappers have actually started plotting against themselves driven by mistrust and paranoia. When you get to the child, you actually have two (slightly) different endings branching off here - she is in danger, the final kidnapper uses her as a bargaining chip for his life when you reach him. You can take him out but that immediately puts her in danger and you might not be able to save her.

I found the most satisfying ending to be the high chaos ending with the little girl dying. Here is the story it paints: Corvo had been a good and honourable man (well, I think), before the Empress was killed and he accused of the murder. When he eventually escapes and has to do Bad Things in order to restore what he lost he...well, takes it too far. The grief, anger, and pain, he had been put through caused him to lash out against others. He justified his actions to himself as "for the greater good" but in the end, it did not matter, for he still lost the one thing he loved. All the shit he has had to go through, all the pain he was forced to (according to himself) inflict upon others still results in him losing the girl.

I thought it quite appropriate considering what Corvo has done. 'Poetic justice', if you will.

 

[Kanova]

1.Is a sadist in every sense of the word
2.Will steal from the very poor
3.Rapes people
4.Kills children
5.Would prefer to leave an enemy to die broken and mutilated rather than finish them off.
6.Is manipulative and willing to exploit the earnest and unaware.

1. I have no problem with that
2. I would, but they probably wouldn't have anything so I would kill them
3. I have nothing against rape in games or movies, I would probably abuse the function saying "***** RAPING TIME" ever so often
4. I HATE games where you can't kill kids. It doesn't help that kids are annoying as hell in games.
5. I like it in games where I can throw someone against stuff and watch them squirm for a while. In games where I can shoot off a limb and let them bleed to death, I do.
6. Why wouldn't that be alright? If you are playing a villian, I would have it no other way.

So in short, yes and I think it would be a fantastic game. Talk about freedom.

 

[Vykrel]

sure, as long as there is a point to it all. if the character does deplorable things for the sake of it, then that is just silly.

 

[scorptatious]

I would.

I can't really think of any games that actually allow you to play a villain like that.

So long as I don't torture animals. That's one thing I probably couldn't stomach doing in a game.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Would I? Probably not. Even in games where you have a choice between "good" and "bad" I will at least skew towards "good" if not go fully that way.

I certainly wouldn't, however, begrudge any game maker who wanted to make that game. As long as it was done well, I think it could be interesting and I would love to hear about peoples experiences with the game. I just really don't think I'd play it myself.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't know, probably if the stealing and killing mechanics were satisfying enough, but I haven't come across that game yet. I play Hotline Miami without much issue (although the enemies there are mostly Russian mobsters).

 

[EHKOS]

Well, I'm bipolar, so occasionally I'll play a bit of Manhunt 2 if my mood swings the wrong way. So if I had a depressive mood going, then yeah, I probably could. On any other day, no. I like to stay away from that stuff because it will kind of bring on that mindset. I'd only play like that if I was already there.

TBH I usually can't do an evil playthrough of a game, in GTA IV I let Darko go without much trouble. I normally have a really good conscience to where it usually applies to video games too.

 

[renegade7]

Well...Dwarf Fortress. But that's because sometimes it's hilarious to be awful (such as my invention, the Dwarven abortion assembly line), other times it's because keeping the fortress alive can mean occasionally having to make a few...sacrifices.... But in either event, it's because I have no reason to care about the individual Dwarfs, if something makes them unhappy I just unlock the stockpile with the nice food and booze in it. You may have just had your unborn child punched out of you by a mechanical hammer (this has the added benefit that they are often too injured to cause any damage if they tantrum), but on the other hand, eating that high quality plump helmet stew put you in a much better mood (I understand the "happiness meter" system is only a placeholder and will be overhauled in an upcoming build, but even so).

I've tried to be the bad guy in more traditional games with morality systems, I really have. But the problem is that it's too often presented as this binary: you're a horrible person who will butcher a million children to complete the mission, or you'll let the mission fail and the human race potentially die in order to save one kid. Unfortunately, most morality systems basically give you the choice between an option that's inarguably better and one that's just a completely unreasonably dickish move. Mass Effect has been the closest to getting it right, but even then the morality system is basically just an elaborate political alignment quiz (and the Paragon/Renegade score thing makes it functionally difficult to decide between two options: if you've made Paragon choices in the past, you have to keep making Paragon choices or else your score in either alignment will be too low for the special conversation branches later on): it never really gave me a reason to think about the options I was being given.

Playing the bad guy isn't about just being a dick for its own sake. It's about this mentality that it's acceptable to do things most would regard as unacceptable and harmful to others. We know it's wrong to kill children, but really being evil is about the rationalization and the motives: "I didn't blow up the school bus full of kids for shiggles, I did it because it was necessary to complete the mission" or "assassinations for money are acceptable because I feel the people I'm hired to assassinate deserve to die". The evil action needs to feel like it *might* be either justifiable or necessary; the player has to both want to do it because of the rewards or necessity and not want to do it because it's wrong, and there needs to be something to push me over the edge into picking the evil choice (naturally it also means I need the opportunity to do something a little bit more ethical, but there must at the same time be a good reason for me to NOT choose the ethical path).

Just going out into the world and wrecking shit might be amusing...for like 5 minutes.

Remember, the worst monsters in history thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler thought he was creating the perfect world for those who deserved to live in it, Stalin eradicated millions because of his belief that they would disrupt the unity of the USSR.

So yes, I might very well play a character who does any one of those things...as long as the game gives me a good reason to beyond "lol funny".

 

[Caiphus]

Difficult to say. I didn't mind playing as Trevor in GTA V, although I never actually made it to the infamous torture scene.

It probably depends on how serious the game was trying to be. How realistic the victims' actions were, how graphic the scenes were, whether they were broken up by regular gameplay, whether there was any believable motivation for the evil protagonist, if the protagonist actually wins thanks to the player, etc etc.

Chances are I wouldn't enjoy playing the example given in the OP, though. That seems distinctly unfun to me.

 

[DEAD34345]

Easy. In fact I've done it, I think. Lately in the Crusader Kings 2 Game of Thrones mod I've been playing as Paezhar zo Myraq a lot, the "Little Pigeon" of Yunkai. He's an extremely minor character in the books, and probably won't appear in the series at all, but he's described as a very short slaver with a personal guard made entirely of extremely tall slaves with stilts built into their armour (he's also an idiot, presumably).

Anyway, while playing as him I've done everything in that list of yours. It's possibly even worse than it would be in most games actually, because Crusader Kings never requires you to do anything, I personally decided to do each horrific thing in that list (usually as part of some elaborate plot to steal land or power).

In this game I've paid people to smother newborn infants in their cribs, I've over-taxed the peasantry endlessly and whenever they rise up against me I have them massacred, I've had my enemies tortured and castrated, and on occasion I've left them rotting in cells for decades so that their heir can't inherit their lands and move against me. Oh, also it turns out that rape is a very convenient way to create more slaves to sell. I think that covers 1 through 6 quite comprehensively.

So yeah. Frankly I'm somewhat surprised this game isn't banned everywhere, but I'm not complaining.

 

[FPLOON]

It... depends? I don't know?

OT: Honestly, if a game has a playable character like that, then the story and/or world of said game needs to justify why I should play a character like that... otherwise, it's going to come off more awkward than its worth...

Sure, the gameplay could be the best thing to come out of video game history, however I feel a character like that would need to be in a good video game story and/or world worthy of wanting to play as said character...

 

[Auberon]

Try playing Evil incarnation of Nameless One. And do not skip reading.

 

[EyeReaper]

Well, I have played games where I can do each of those things, although not all of them in one game.

Besides, There are already a bunch of games where you play complete and total assholes. Games like Saints Row and Postal, except for the rape part (which I'm sure there's a mod for) pretty much check off every item on that list. However, there is an inherent problem here though, I think it would be impossible to take a game like that seriously, it would be too over the top, once again, like Saints Row.

 

[Mikejames]

OT: If there's some genuine reason behind it, sure, why not? Otherwise, I think it would just come off as ridiculously comedic. I'd like to see a 'Clockwork Orange' of video games though, so get on it devs.

I don't know, is there really a strong desire to cross the barrier that comes with watching the story of a single-mindedly sadistic rapist like Alex DeLarge, and being placed in his shoes, forced to drive his actions?

 

[The Goat Tsar]

No I would never play a truly appalling person in a game. I wouldn't have any problem with this game existing, but I wouldn't play it. No matter the game, I can't help but at least partially project myself onto the main character of a game. I have trouble finishing games as somewhat evil characters, I'd never be able to finish a game with a truly evil character.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

The first time I felt a bit of 'discomfort' playing a character who strayed so far off from my 'principles', was Star Wars KOTOR. I know, how could that be something when I played Soldier of Fortune and ran around blowing limbs off for the fun of it, even hacking fresh corpses up just to marvel at the damage engine. But the decisions given in KOTOR were amazing, the scenarios that were set up, I can't remember many in particular but just the overall feel. Around the same time I also played Neverwinter Nights. It was the first time I really remember getting an 'Evil' course to take, and thinking I'll give it a try for a difference. And I really enjoyed it, where I actually had to stop and think of how to be the worst kind of person imaginable.

So yes, I would most definitely play a truly appalling person. You have to remember though, that for there to be an appalling person and an evil path to take, someone has to write it, so while writing 'good' and selfless characters is probably an easier and natural thing to do, it takes a bit more creativity for someone to come up with evil plots.

Motives behind it are secondary, I don't care whether it's straight up evil, comedic evil, vengeance-based, or even brainwashed/self-conflicted, I find them all interesting, as long as they're remotely plausible.