A thread about the portrayal of evil in video games, of black, white, gray, evil vs petty, about the ends justifying the means, and about moral relativism.
We've had this discussion before (and I always enjoy it.) It deserves its own thread. I'm importing a few posts from the Mass Effect thread to get it rolling.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:33 pm
Given my pattern for replaying other games (and really, the number of games I've replayed is <5), I'm guessing I would pick exactly the same character (Male Shepard) and make exactly the same choices. It's just the way I'm wired.
Same. I'm always a goody-two-shoes in every game I play. I've only tried taking the "evil" path in a couple games, and have found it causes me to enjoy the game significantly less. I particularly recall a dark side situation in KOTOR (between Zaalbar and Mission) that damn near ruined the entire game for me.
I also generally tend to play as dudes, as it's a little more difficult to put myself in the character's shoes if I'm the opposite gender.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 2:43 pm
I don't dislike evil play throughs of games, but very few games actually support it with real motivations for bad guy characters or evil actions that advance those motivations (as opposed to the usual video game evil of rude or greedy.) . The Mass Effect story, for instance, makes no sense if Shepard is evil. A good guy savior, sure. A hard ass military career man, sure. But evil? It just doesn't work.
Want to make games with great evil options? Make the evil choices easier than the good choices. Want the infected planet for colonization? Make curing the plague to earn the natives' support for a treaty difficult, but make letting them die off while you work on something else easy, giving even better access to the planet.
That's how 'evil' happens in real life. It's always a temptation to take the easy route or the route that benefits you the most at a cost to others when the option that benefits everyone is hard work.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 2:43 pm
I don't dislike evil play throughs of games, but very few games actually support it with real motivations for bad guy characters or evil actions that advance those motivations (as opposed to the usual video game evil of rude or greedy.) . The Mass Effect story, for instance, makes no sense if Shepard is evil. A good guy savior, sure. A hard ass military career man, sure. But evil? It just doesn't work.
Want to make games with great evil options? Make the evil choices easier than the good choices. Want the infected planet for colonization? Make curing the plague to earn the natives' support for a treaty difficult, but make letting them die off while you work on something else easy, giving even better access to the planet.
That's how 'evil' happens in real life. It's always a temptation to take the easy route or the route that benefits you the most at a cost to others when the option that benefits everyone is hard work.
Dragon Age 1 did a great job of this. The 'evil' options weren't comic book evil (you were still saving the world), but they were more ruthless. Like for the quest line at the mage tower, the trouble there was that some mages got possessed by Demons and the paladin order was threatening to exterminate all of them to deal with that. The 'evil' option is essentially to let the Paladins do that. The 'good' option is to go in and fight the demons and undo the possession that way.
Sudy wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 11:18 pm
As for "evil choices", I'm sure a few games have done a decent job, but in Bioware games it's mostly been window dressing, hasn't it? Yeah, there may be some major plot divergences that individual choices build toward, but it's hard for them to devote design time to truly branching paths. In open-world games a lot amounts to reputation changes with various factions. I started a KOTOR evil playthrough, but it felt horrible even though it was more of a "muahaha" evil. But even in the Star Wars universe where good/evil, light/dark is well defined, it still didn't seem realistic because outside of some admonishments, most of the good-leaning companions would stand by you.
If we're talking true evil rather than "grumpy/selfish", I doubt many players are going to opt for that path. Mostly it will be those who are doing a new game+ type of run and want to see any content they missed. I think I'd rather have a Machiavellian/sociopathic alternative to a chaotic evil one.
Sudy wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 11:18 pm
If we're talking true evil rather than "grumpy/selfish", I doubt many players are going to opt for that path. Mostly it will be those who are doing a new game+ type of run and want to see any content they missed. I think I'd rather have a Machiavellian/sociopathic alternative to a chaotic evil one.
There's certainly a space between rude/greedy/petty and Jeffrey Dahmer/Hitler. There is a middle ground wherein lie the Mitch McConnels and Christopher Columbuses (people who achieve their ends regardless of human cost - they aren't driven to make people suffer, they just don't take it into account as long as their side wins), or even the fringe cases - the Thomas Edisons and George Pattons (people who did achieved important things despite (because of?) being terrible human beings.) Movies are starting to get bad guys right. Killmonger from Black Panther was a great example. Magneto in the X-Men. Let us play a sci-fi early James Bond, who casually executed people because the evil act was the smart move. Let us play a fantasy Jack Bauer who saved the day with incredibly terrible acts! Give us Roy Batty dilemmas!
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:09 am
To add to that, bring in cultural differences more, and let it go both directions. Let the classic hero's clear choice involve something seen as pure evil by the people he wants to save (I'm seeing some Babylon 5 here.) Let the traditions that the traditional hero sees as awful be seen as absolute expressions of the greatest good and love by people he's dealing with (like so many cultures saw human sacrifice - as a heroic act that saved lives.)
Put the hero in the position of having to decide whether to force his 'classic' morality tropes on others, and have there be consequences. Let him act heroically (in his mind) and become the villain to the people he saves. There is so much interesting storytelling that could be done here.
But instead we get to ask for an extra five gold. Or insist on keeping the farmer's heirloom sword for ourselves. Or give smarmy answers.
I usually play good or neutral characters. Evil is usually not my style. Altho I did kill a bunch of children in Fallout 2. Thieving little bastards had it coming.
And of course there's Evil Genius 2.
This could be why I enjoyed The Witcher games so much (though again, I am not sure I could replay them and make different choices). For the most part, the resolution for many (most? all?) of the game's quests weren't black and white (good vs evil) choices. Every decision seemingly had a price - sometimes it was obvious, but other times you'd be thinking that you made the "best' decision only to find there was some type of unintended consequences that were a real bummer. You weren't choosing between good or evil options, but what felt like the possible best resolution for everyone involved.
Even in trying to walk a neutral path of non-involvement, you couldn't help but notice that just by interacting with others Geralt had an impact on their lives and their trajectory.
And maybe learning that - seeing that no man is truly an island - was the real treasure all along.
When role-playing a character, I can only play as "good". I am just unable to go against my grain and pick "bad" choices. OTOH, in more abstracted settings, like TW:Warhammer, I can fully embrace the playstyle appropriate to the race in question. I enjoy being the last bastion of civilization when playing the Empire or the Dwarves, and I enjoy the "burn it all down" playstyle of Chaos and the Dark Elves.
I'd love a game in which you start out evil but gradually start to get nicer as the game progresses via the decisions you're making. I don't believe I've ever seen a game tackle that before. Done right, I think it could be pretty compelling.
Rumpy wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:33 pm
I'd love a game in which you start out evil but gradually start to get nicer as the game progresses via the decisions you're making. I don't believe I've ever seen a game tackle that before. Done right, I think it could be pretty compelling.
Does Tyranny allow for that?
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
I dunno. I haven't played it. But it's always struck me in games that have their light and dark paths, it's always more of a slide toward darkness rather than the other way around, and I think it could be fun to have it the other way around for once. Sort of like the anti-hero who ends up becoming a true hero in the end.
Although it would be hard to pull that off in games that gave you actual choices (as it would be forcing you to play to one pre-planned result.) It would be a good story for a more linear, scripted game, though.
I think Tyranny handles this pretty well. For the most part you are always going to be the enforcer of a tyrant but that doesn’t mean the things you are doing have to be “evil.” You have the option to treat your lords’ subjects as garbage or you can choose kindness and ensure they don’t suffer needlessly. Usually, the kindness option requires more work in the game.
The game in general makes me think of a Terry Pratchett quote,
“'... the only thing the good people are good at is overthrowing the bad people. And you’re good at that, I’ll grant you. But the trouble is that it’s the only thing you’re good at. One day it’s the ringing of the bells and the casting down of the evil tyrant, and the next it’s everyone sitting around complaining that ever since the tyrant was over-thrown no-one’s been taking out the trash. Because the bad people know how to plan. It’s part of the specification, you might say. Every evil tyrant has a plan to rule the world.'
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:30 pm
Although it would be hard to pull that off in games that gave you actual choices (as it would be forcing you to play to one pre-planned result.) It would be a good story for a more linear, scripted game, though.
Dunno, I was thinking of it as a Bioware-style RPG, with it being one option among many that would give you a different ending. You could still opt to be bad all the way through, but some might want to see if they can redeem themselves.
Rumpy wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:33 pm
I'd love a game in which you start out evil but gradually start to get nicer as the game progresses via the decisions you're making. I don't believe I've ever seen a game tackle that before. Done right, I think it could be pretty compelling.
Does Tyranny allow for that?
Yeah, I'd say so. It's possible to go "good guy", although the sequence of events to make it happen is pretty non-intuitive (I had to look up a walkthrough - apparently, you have to let a bunch of people live even though they were trying to ambush and kill you).
Of course, Tyranny also has plenty of "cackling maniacally while pushing old ladies down staircases" options. But there's some nuance (including a couple of scenarios where the 'good, merciful' approach results in, let's say, sub-optimal outcomes).
Rumpy wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:33 pm
I'd love a game in which you start out evil but gradually start to get nicer as the game progresses via the decisions you're making. I don't believe I've ever seen a game tackle that before. Done right, I think it could be pretty compelling.
Does Tyranny allow for that?
Yeah, I'd say so. It's possible to go "good guy", although the sequence of events to make it happen is pretty non-intuitive (I had to look up a walkthrough - apparently, you have to let a bunch of people live even though they were trying to ambush and kill you).
Of course, Tyranny also has plenty of "cackling maniacally while pushing old ladies down staircases" options. But there's some nuance (including a couple of scenarios where the 'good, merciful' approach results in, let's say, sub-optimal outcomes).
That was basically the storyline of RDR 2. Bad guy goes.... better.
Whereas the storyline of GTA V was the bad guy tries not to do bad but does bad, makes the good guy into a bad guy, and watches as the really bad guy does really bad.
Yeah, there's no redemption in that one, red, dead, or otherwise.
I even managed to work around the "everyone is evil - including you! bwaahhahahah" concept in Tyranny by roleplaying as someone colonialized who was PRETENDING to be evil while secretly planning to overthrow the DOMINANT PARADIGM while supporting the downtrodden - as long as I didn't get noticed. If I was being observed, under the trolley car they went. All for the greater good.
Other than that, I play as Chaotic Good so I can steal equipment that will advance my cause of throwing over the darkness; or, at least, makes my butt look good.
That was basically the storyline of RDR 2. Bad guy goes.... better.
Except that it's baked into the story. You don't really have a choice in it. And I say that as someone who loves the game and feels it's Rockstar's best narrative to date.
I also don't really feel GTA V gives you much in terms of decisions, nor do I really expect it to given that it's not really a decision-driven game where choices matter. The decisions lay more in the approaches and who dies at the end.
Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:45 am
KOTOR was the one I remember where the dark side was so entertaining it was superior.
I thought KOTOR was great because it was revealed that your character HAD been evil before losing his memory. At that point, you had to decide what do you do with your future.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 4:45 pm
I thought KOTOR was great because it was revealed that your character HAD been evil before losing his memory. At that point, you had to decide what do you do with your future.
AHHHH! SPOILER ALERT!!!
(just kidding! )
Black Lives Matter
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." - The 4th Doctor
)