Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I actually tend to try and start out as good, but man, when I get options to make the real assholes get what's coming to them? Those fuckers burn. I ain't got time for this wishy-washy crap where murdering douchebags get a chance at redemption because the death of their favorite kitten opened their eyes; turn your back on killing somebody like that and they just end up stabbing you in the spine. Maybe I won't feed them feet-first into the threshing maw of hell, but I'm sure not pulling them out when they're stuck hanging by their fingertips at the edge because I just stopped them from butchering a village for having the wrong local saying or something.
Except for Metro Last Light, because I just couldn't bring myself to kill the helpless bad guys with the mutant kid watching. "Do what I say, not what I do" doesn't really come across well to a telepath who can hear you thinking "I would never not kill this guy, but I should tell the kid not to be like that because.... whatever."
+1
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
edited February 2014
Yeah, I pretty much killed everybody until the kid started tagging along.
Already felt bad enough that I, you know, kind of nuked his entire civilization.
Definitely going to kill Pavel in the future though.
Post apocalyptic games are the rare kind where I actually play good first, evil later.
+1 for going through these kind of games the first time as the evil conqueror, here to build my own throne of skulls.
If I do a good replay, I normally play a Paladin, since despite being an evil fan, I like that class the best.
This may be the first isometric RPG where I get to play the Paladin AND take the evil path, if Paladin's are just devoted to causes. Whose to say the cause can't be making myself a fancy new chair made out of peasants that get in my way?
Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause, combining the zeal of a priest with the ascetic discipline of a monk. They have founded many elite fighting forces, from the original Darcozzi Paladini, a two thousand year-old order of palace guards, to the fledgling Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr, zealous defenders of the Godhammer pilgrim trail. Often found at the vanguard of many conflicts, paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes.
It actually sounds like there's room for some serious character development with this new version of an old and boring class. A competent writer could do a lot with this variation as the whole "devotion to a chosen cause" description should allow for a great deal of leeway in just how a paladin behaves. Essentially, think of someone devoted to a good and righteous cause that is also willing to skin you alive if necessary. Or a lawful evil knight devoted to upholding a brutal theocratic regime. At least, those are some of the extremes I'd write into the game.
Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause, combining the zeal of a priest with the ascetic discipline of a monk. They have founded many elite fighting forces, from the original Darcozzi Paladini, a two thousand year-old order of palace guards, to the fledgling Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr, zealous defenders of the Godhammer pilgrim trail. Often found at the vanguard of many conflicts, paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes.
It actually sounds like there's room for some serious character development with this new version of an old and boring class. A competent writer could do a lot with this variation as the whole "devotion to a chosen cause" description should allow for a great deal of leeway in just how a paladin behaves. Essentially, think of someone devoted to a good and righteous cause that is also willing to skin you alive if necessary. Or a lawful evil knight devoted to upholding a brutal theocratic regime. At least, those are some of the extremes I'd write into the game.
I'm going to be a Paladin of Greed. Travelers I come across shall be given the choice of their earthly possessions or their lives.
Some heathens may call me a brigand, but I know my cause is holy and true.
I prefer the older classic of "assholes who pay lip service to a righteous cause and surround themselves with propaganda and deceptive rhetoric to trick people into thinking that they're good but then go on to do whatever the hell they want."
KingofMadCows on
0
Options
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
The problem with a lot of "evil" choices is that there aren't enough selfish, pragmatic choices, and too many evil for lulz choices.
I think some of that's down to developers being reluctant to make crime pay.... but it does! That's the main reason people do terrible things! To get what they want! To cover up other crimes! Not just because, "I don't like your dumb face!"
The problem with a lot of "evil" choices is that there aren't enough selfish, pragmatic choices, and too many evil for lulz choices.
I think some of that's down to developers being reluctant to make crime pay.... but it does! That's the main reason people do terrible things! To get what they want! To cover up other crimes! Not just because, "I don't like your dumb face!"
When you do get something for being evil, it's often just some money that's barely or not even worth the effort, because you already have more golden pauldrons of Greater Moneytrees than you can carry.
0
Options
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
The problem with a lot of "evil" choices is that there aren't enough selfish, pragmatic choices, and too many evil for lulz choices.
I think some of that's down to developers being reluctant to make crime pay.... but it does! That's the main reason people do terrible things! To get what they want! To cover up other crimes! Not just because, "I don't like your dumb face!"
When you do get something for being evil, it's often just some money that's barely or not even worth the effort, because you already have more golden pauldrons of Greater Moneytrees than you can carry.
When it comes to in game economies and systems, Loot is the root of all evil.
There are two problems with how most games deal with evil. The first is that they tend to make the evil choice the shortsighted choice. Choosing the evil option gives you something now while the good option gives a greater reward later on.
The other problem is that it's very difficult to make the player actually empathize with the evil choices since not enough is done to allow the player to get into that state of mind and imagine a situation where they might make those kinds of decisions. So the decision is too devoid of any real emotional resonance, especially since there are no gradients in how the action can be implement or the motivation behind the decision. The choices are often too extreme and it's difficult to make a choice with consequences that makes the player feel like it was made reluctantly.
I think the new Torment game will have some game mechanics that will make the morality system very interesting. Particularly the player's ability to temporarily take over the lives of other characters. That could be used to show the player how another character became the way they are and why they made the decisions they made. It could even be used by other characters as a way to convince the player of their point of view. If the player can basically live as an "evil" character, there can be a level of attachment to the character and an understanding of the choices to better immerse the player in how those "evil" choices are made.
Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause, combining the zeal of a priest with the ascetic discipline of a monk. They have founded many elite fighting forces, from the original Darcozzi Paladini, a two thousand year-old order of palace guards, to the fledgling Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr, zealous defenders of the Godhammer pilgrim trail. Often found at the vanguard of many conflicts, paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes.
It actually sounds like there's room for some serious character development with this new version of an old and boring class. A competent writer could do a lot with this variation as the whole "devotion to a chosen cause" description should allow for a great deal of leeway in just how a paladin behaves. Essentially, think of someone devoted to a good and righteous cause that is also willing to skin you alive if necessary. Or a lawful evil knight devoted to upholding a brutal theocratic regime. At least, those are some of the extremes I'd write into the game.
There are two problems with how most games deal with evil. The first is that they tend to make the evil choice the shortsighted choice. Choosing the evil option gives you something now while the good option gives a greater reward later on.
The other problem is that it's very difficult to make the player actually empathize with the evil choices since not enough is done to allow the player to get into that state of mind and imagine a situation where they might make those kinds of decisions. So the decision is too devoid of any real emotional resonance, especially since there are no gradients in how the action can be implement or the motivation behind the decision. The choices are often too extreme and it's difficult to make a choice with consequences that makes the player feel like it was made reluctantly.
I think the new Torment game will have some game mechanics that will make the morality system very interesting. Particularly the player's ability to temporarily take over the lives of other characters. That could be used to show the player how another character became the way they are and why they made the decisions they made. It could even be used by other characters as a way to convince the player of their point of view. If the player can basically live as an "evil" character, there can be a level of attachment to the character and an understanding of the choices to better immerse the player in how those "evil" choices are made.
And all of that is a side effect of the actual reason evil sucks in games: Money. They're not going to expend time i.e. money on making basically 2 games, good and evil. Evil characters would take a wildly different approach to most things if not outright say fuck this, I'm going to go become a warlord somewhere else, the big bad can have this place. That's something BioWare nailed with their Renegade/Paragon system. You can't be evil, because you couldn't be evil anyway. KOTOR/2 is a lightside story pretty much no matter what you do. So it'll be interested to see how "evil" you can be, but I really don't expect PoE to break new ground on this front. Nor should it, they don't have the budget.
The one game That I think did a good job of presenting things as being very grey/incentivizing evil was skyrim; the game seriously did nothing to reward you for being a great guy but tripped over itself to reward you for being an asshole.
Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause, combining the zeal of a priest with the ascetic discipline of a monk. They have founded many elite fighting forces, from the original Darcozzi Paladini, a two thousand year-old order of palace guards, to the fledgling Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr, zealous defenders of the Godhammer pilgrim trail. Often found at the vanguard of many conflicts, paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes.
It actually sounds like there's room for some serious character development with this new version of an old and boring class. A competent writer could do a lot with this variation as the whole "devotion to a chosen cause" description should allow for a great deal of leeway in just how a paladin behaves. Essentially, think of someone devoted to a good and righteous cause that is also willing to skin you alive if necessary. Or a lawful evil knight devoted to upholding a brutal theocratic regime. At least, those are some of the extremes I'd write into the game.
Pre-Frostmourne Arthas
Man Arthas is a terrible example. He's like the Anakin Skywalker of Warcraft. There are totes better examples. Lord Soth is generally considered one of the better ones.
Personally, I think the idea of the Punisher as a Paladin is intriguing.
It's sometimes vaguely insulting how games "reward" self-serving, pragmatic behavior. Asking for/intimidating extra rewards out of NPCs? That's 50 gp or equivalent extra(where you probably have wealth in the 10's of thousands, or more at this point).
The example that comes to mind right now is TOR, where all the massive wealth and rewards etc. the dialogue always touts usually amounted to piddly cash that wouldn't buy you a single medpack.
There should be one, or even two extra zeroes behind such cash rewards in order to make them genuinely worth taking, and possibly offering a temptation to people playing good characters. Doing evil things for the sake of doing evil things (if you're being a psycho), or doing evil things for substantial monetary gain (for an evil pragmatist) both make more sense than doing evil things for chump change(the usual game setup for such situations).
It's sometimes vaguely insulting how games "reward" self-serving, pragmatic behavior. Asking for/intimidating extra rewards out of NPCs? That's 50 gp or equivalent extra(where you probably have wealth in the 10's of thousands, or more at this point).
The example that comes to mind right now is TOR, where all the massive wealth and rewards etc. the dialogue always touts usually amounted to piddly cash that wouldn't buy you a single medpack.
There should be one, or even two extra zeroes behind such cash rewards in order to make them genuinely worth taking, and possibly offering a temptation to people playing good characters. Doing evil things for the sake of doing evil things (if you're being a psycho), or doing evil things for substantial monetary gain (for an evil pragmatist) both make more sense than doing evil things for chump change(the usual game setup for such situations).
People always say that but then something banner saga comes along and everyone says its dumb that one choice (the evil one) is obviously the right one.
Well the evil choice being better every time IS a flaw. You should get the extra 0's sometimes, and sometimes you get a fight etc. If you just straight come out ahead for being evil all the time, that usually will be dumb. I'm sure there could be an exception, and I haven't played Banner Saga either.
Well the evil choice being better every time IS a flaw. You should get the extra 0's sometimes, and sometimes you get a fight etc. If you just straight come out ahead for being evil all the time, that usually will be dumb. I'm sure there could be an exception, and I haven't played Banner Saga either.
It's not even always tho.
If you give people a choice that has benefits one way or another then people feel like they have to look up the options and take the optimal path (or so they say).
It's sometimes vaguely insulting how games "reward" self-serving, pragmatic behavior. Asking for/intimidating extra rewards out of NPCs? That's 50 gp or equivalent extra(where you probably have wealth in the 10's of thousands, or more at this point).
The example that comes to mind right now is TOR, where all the massive wealth and rewards etc. the dialogue always touts usually amounted to piddly cash that wouldn't buy you a single medpack.
There should be one, or even two extra zeroes behind such cash rewards in order to make them genuinely worth taking, and possibly offering a temptation to people playing good characters. Doing evil things for the sake of doing evil things (if you're being a psycho), or doing evil things for substantial monetary gain (for an evil pragmatist) both make more sense than doing evil things for chump change(the usual game setup for such situations).
People always say that but then something banner saga comes along and everyone says its dumb that one choice (the evil one) is obviously the right one.
Wait which choice was evil in that game, and when was it obviously right?
I basically stumbled through that game before emerging on the other side a broken man, which I think was intended.
What if there was a way to do lethal damage versus non lethal damage as a toggle or something. Doing lethal damage will kill enemies a little faster, making encounters slightly easier but non-lethal damage means there's a chance the knockout blow will miss slightly extending fights. You have to decide on which you want to use. Maybe you can only make the choice yourself and your party members already have the flag checked. Certain weapons could always lethal.
Depending on how loot works, do you take everything from a guy you just knocked out, leaving him naked in the woods?
Edit: If you make it really easy to swap. As a good player, you may have an event where you get so angry you want to kill that bandit leader. Give people the ability to have moments of weakness, good or bad.
It's sometimes vaguely insulting how games "reward" self-serving, pragmatic behavior. Asking for/intimidating extra rewards out of NPCs? That's 50 gp or equivalent extra(where you probably have wealth in the 10's of thousands, or more at this point).
The example that comes to mind right now is TOR, where all the massive wealth and rewards etc. the dialogue always touts usually amounted to piddly cash that wouldn't buy you a single medpack.
There should be one, or even two extra zeroes behind such cash rewards in order to make them genuinely worth taking, and possibly offering a temptation to people playing good characters. Doing evil things for the sake of doing evil things (if you're being a psycho), or doing evil things for substantial monetary gain (for an evil pragmatist) both make more sense than doing evil things for chump change(the usual game setup for such situations).
People always say that but then something banner saga comes along and everyone says its dumb that one choice (the evil one) is obviously the right one.
Wait which choice was evil in that game, and when was it obviously right?
I basically stumbled through that game before emerging on the other side a broken man, which I think was intended.
Banner saga is more practical/ethical than right/wrong. Like looting corpses. You leave them be you get nothing, loot them you get their stuff.
I think that that is how it should work but going by what people have said they didn't like that one choice gave more game benifits than the other.
It's sometimes vaguely insulting how games "reward" self-serving, pragmatic behavior. Asking for/intimidating extra rewards out of NPCs? That's 50 gp or equivalent extra(where you probably have wealth in the 10's of thousands, or more at this point).
The example that comes to mind right now is TOR, where all the massive wealth and rewards etc. the dialogue always touts usually amounted to piddly cash that wouldn't buy you a single medpack.
There should be one, or even two extra zeroes behind such cash rewards in order to make them genuinely worth taking, and possibly offering a temptation to people playing good characters. Doing evil things for the sake of doing evil things (if you're being a psycho), or doing evil things for substantial monetary gain (for an evil pragmatist) both make more sense than doing evil things for chump change(the usual game setup for such situations).
People always say that but then something banner saga comes along and everyone says its dumb that one choice (the evil one) is obviously the right one.
Wait which choice was evil in that game, and when was it obviously right?
I basically stumbled through that game before emerging on the other side a broken man, which I think was intended.
Banner saga is more practical/ethical than right/wrong. Like looting corpses. You leave them be you get nothing, loot them you get their stuff.
I think that that is how it should work but going by what people have said they didn't like that one choice gave more game benifits than the other.
But isn't that the whole point of doing the right thing or the wrong thing? Finding a wallet on the street with $100 in it is a good example. Give it back to the person in full or keep it. The good option is that you go out of your way and get nothing, the bad choice gets you $100. If people want choice they need to get over not getting as much as the person playing it a different way. Part of doing the right thing is going through the thought process of what you're giving up and doing it anyway.
EDIT: I should note that I still feel that both ways of playing need to be viable. Maybe there's a way to let good players get rewarded without them even knowing it. increased rewards % increase on selling and slight decrease on purchasing.
Posts
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
Except for Metro Last Light, because I just couldn't bring myself to kill the helpless bad guys with the mutant kid watching. "Do what I say, not what I do" doesn't really come across well to a telepath who can hear you thinking "I would never not kill this guy, but I should tell the kid not to be like that because.... whatever."
Already felt bad enough that I, you know, kind of nuked his entire civilization.
Post apocalyptic games are the rare kind where I actually play good first, evil later.
If I do a good replay, I normally play a Paladin, since despite being an evil fan, I like that class the best.
This may be the first isometric RPG where I get to play the Paladin AND take the evil path, if Paladin's are just devoted to causes. Whose to say the cause can't be making myself a fancy new chair made out of peasants that get in my way?
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
The contradiction sounds fun.
"God grant me the strength to strike down this unarmed man begging for his life!"
Heavy regal white armor, restorative/defensive magic, that kind of thing.
I'm going to be a Paladin of Greed. Travelers I come across shall be given the choice of their earthly possessions or their lives.
Some heathens may call me a brigand, but I know my cause is holy and true.
I think some of that's down to developers being reluctant to make crime pay.... but it does! That's the main reason people do terrible things! To get what they want! To cover up other crimes! Not just because, "I don't like your dumb face!"
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
Sometimes murdering someone just because you don't like them is it's own reward.
When you do get something for being evil, it's often just some money that's barely or not even worth the effort, because you already have more golden pauldrons of Greater Moneytrees than you can carry.
When it comes to in game economies and systems, Loot is the root of all evil.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
Becuase I might have chosen that one.
The other problem is that it's very difficult to make the player actually empathize with the evil choices since not enough is done to allow the player to get into that state of mind and imagine a situation where they might make those kinds of decisions. So the decision is too devoid of any real emotional resonance, especially since there are no gradients in how the action can be implement or the motivation behind the decision. The choices are often too extreme and it's difficult to make a choice with consequences that makes the player feel like it was made reluctantly.
I think the new Torment game will have some game mechanics that will make the morality system very interesting. Particularly the player's ability to temporarily take over the lives of other characters. That could be used to show the player how another character became the way they are and why they made the decisions they made. It could even be used by other characters as a way to convince the player of their point of view. If the player can basically live as an "evil" character, there can be a level of attachment to the character and an understanding of the choices to better immerse the player in how those "evil" choices are made.
And all of that is a side effect of the actual reason evil sucks in games: Money. They're not going to expend time i.e. money on making basically 2 games, good and evil. Evil characters would take a wildly different approach to most things if not outright say fuck this, I'm going to go become a warlord somewhere else, the big bad can have this place. That's something BioWare nailed with their Renegade/Paragon system. You can't be evil, because you couldn't be evil anyway. KOTOR/2 is a lightside story pretty much no matter what you do. So it'll be interested to see how "evil" you can be, but I really don't expect PoE to break new ground on this front. Nor should it, they don't have the budget.
Personally, I think the idea of the Punisher as a Paladin is intriguing.
http://forums.obsidian.net/user/94239-greenshirtgirl/
I'd be more likely to do it for no reason than for 50 lousy caps.
The example that comes to mind right now is TOR, where all the massive wealth and rewards etc. the dialogue always touts usually amounted to piddly cash that wouldn't buy you a single medpack.
There should be one, or even two extra zeroes behind such cash rewards in order to make them genuinely worth taking, and possibly offering a temptation to people playing good characters. Doing evil things for the sake of doing evil things (if you're being a psycho), or doing evil things for substantial monetary gain (for an evil pragmatist) both make more sense than doing evil things for chump change(the usual game setup for such situations).
People always say that but then something banner saga comes along and everyone says its dumb that one choice (the evil one) is obviously the right one.
Is that Stephanie from the recent video?
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
If you give people a choice that has benefits one way or another then people feel like they have to look up the options and take the optimal path (or so they say).
Wait which choice was evil in that game, and when was it obviously right?
I basically stumbled through that game before emerging on the other side a broken man, which I think was intended.
Depending on how loot works, do you take everything from a guy you just knocked out, leaving him naked in the woods?
Edit: If you make it really easy to swap. As a good player, you may have an event where you get so angry you want to kill that bandit leader. Give people the ability to have moments of weakness, good or bad.
3DS FC: 5086-1134-6451
Shiny Code: 3837
Banner saga is more practical/ethical than right/wrong. Like looting corpses. You leave them be you get nothing, loot them you get their stuff.
I think that that is how it should work but going by what people have said they didn't like that one choice gave more game benifits than the other.
But isn't that the whole point of doing the right thing or the wrong thing? Finding a wallet on the street with $100 in it is a good example. Give it back to the person in full or keep it. The good option is that you go out of your way and get nothing, the bad choice gets you $100. If people want choice they need to get over not getting as much as the person playing it a different way. Part of doing the right thing is going through the thought process of what you're giving up and doing it anyway.
EDIT: I should note that I still feel that both ways of playing need to be viable. Maybe there's a way to let good players get rewarded without them even knowing it. increased rewards % increase on selling and slight decrease on purchasing.
EDIT 2: Viable not valuable.
3DS FC: 5086-1134-6451
Shiny Code: 3837