In my case, if a game has an evil story line, I am almost certain to want to try it. I enjoy playing a villain when there is a tale to be told, though often it ends up not being as well-written as the 'good guy' version of the story.
However, in open world games like those Bethesda makes, I'm never the sort to commit random genocide just because I can. I might be a dick to people and steal from them in these games, but I usually do not commit random murder unless the NPC in question has done something to really irritate me. I have assassinated Heimskr, for example, and probably tormented Nazeem a few times, but even in those cases I'm generally 'live and let live'.
On the other extreme is a former co-worker of mine, who I always thought was a little off. One day, back when a few of us were all playing Fallout 3 at the same time, he complained to me that he didn't have anywhere to sell his loot.
"What do you mean?" I asked, confused, "There are merchants in Megaton, Rivet City, etc."
Him: I killed them.
Me: You killed all the merchants? In every town?
Him: Well, I killed everyone, so yes.
Me: Why?! Why would you go around killing everyone?
Him: The game let me.
I don't think it's fair to say that people who murder NPCs in video games are automatically nutcases or sociopaths, but I do think it means something, for sure.
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
If it helps restore peoples' faith in humanity studies have shown that the vast, vast majority of players choose "good" during their first play through of a game.
For me my very first play through is from the gut. Choices are made how I think I would make them. Generally this run is "good".
After that though each character I make is its own person. Some I play as sarcastic assholes, others are noble heroes and yes some are straight up evil bastards.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
+1
Options
KakodaimonosCode fondlerHelping the 1% get richerRegistered Userregular
Or they never played an open world RPG and just played shooters. I had a coworker where Fallout 4 was the first RPG they played. And they kept getting stuck because they thought they should be able to shoot everyone.
I have a really hard time doing evil characters. I can count on one hand in my lifetime of playing tabletop games and video games where I have chosen to go evil in games where that's an option. I just have a really hard time divorcing personal morality from my characters'. I do enjoy reading other people's accounts of doing so though. Seems like they're having a pretty good time.
I just think its a mistake to connect a persons actual, real feelings, to how they roleplay a character in a game. If they kill every last thing because they think it would be a challenge, or because they just don't roleplay in games and shooting is fun, or if they are actually roleplaying a really terrible person. It's just not relevant.
This is partially speaking from my own experience and time playing ruthless assholes and even the occasional even more horrible person. I know myself, and I've seen real world examples of such things, even just text transcripts, and they left me sick to the stomach years later even thinking about them. I resent real evil just as much as any other sane person, and my time playing games may have just strengthened that resentment.
I don't even know if you can really say that a true sociopath or psychopath is more likely to play himself in games. Maybe they like to save kittens when they roleplay
If it helps restore peoples' faith in humanity studies have shown that the vast, vast majority of players choose "good" during their first play through of a game.
For me my very first play through is from the gut. Choices are made how I think I would make them. Generally this run is "good".
After that though each character I make is its own person. Some I play as sarcastic assholes, others are noble heroes and yes some are straight up evil bastards.
Similar approach, though I'll still take the sarcastic asshole dialogue option even on good characters given the option.
Though West of Loathing was a bit of an outlier in that I went for all the Ruthless options my first time through. Ditto Fable 2 and 3. I think the tone of the game matters a great deal for me. The more serious the tone of a game, the tougher it can be to get into an evil playthrough.
Planescape: Torment had a lot of evil dialogue options that were more about being emotionally manipulative as opposed to cartoonish super villainy and was not one I could really keep on going with.
West of Loathing is entirely flippant given its humorous nature with even heroic characters being significantly mischievous (one of the three character classes is Snake Oiler) and the Ruthless options going more over the top as you go on (It starts with shooting a bandit lookout while he's asleep on the job followed by drowning another bandit who fell asleep in a washtub and then proceeds to things like having a giant spider encase a gang in webs and letting it eat them instead of arresting them).
Fable 2 and 3 were both not entirely serious settings but also did something different in letting you be evil and devious while still being honest and lawful. I may have instituted a tax on children in Fable 3 but I also kept my promise to end child labor.
The Elder Scrolls are also one of the outliers where I will play a murderous ass my first run through just because the Dark Brotherhood quests are usually the best in a given entry. They also often change the tone of the game from serious somewhat dark fantasy to black comedy.
Even on my raider character I made for Nuka World I still didn't really kill anyone. I just did the story in Nuka World and enjoyed it and that was the end of it. Didn't do any of the raider settlement stuff or attack diamond city at random or anything else of that sort.
I'll do an evil playthrough all day long if the game's story supports it because I like seeing all of a game's content, but i'm not just going to do that stuff randomly for no reason.
E: It was the invocation of Westworld that got me I guess, because I like the show but that character sucks and I hate that they basically endorse his viewpoint as natural and correct. "Humans suck and we're all garbage animals oh well" is pretty dull from a storytelling perspective. At least I can still get enjoyment from the robots probably murdering all of these awful people if that happens.
Aistan on
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
That isn't really ol Mr. Man in Black's character. Or the point of Westworld.
The point is that there is no good or evil in a world where actions have zero consequences. Man in Black wants a world with consequences (also it seems he is a nice guy philanthropist outside the game).
Westworld is just an open world sandbox with no repercussions to the player. Players literally can't die or loose and anyone you kill comes back the next day. It is like playing GTA with Godmode on.
For a fantastic run down check out Wisecrack's video on it in the spoilers,
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
+1
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
It's been a while since I watched it, but I seem to recall there being an implication that MIB might be causing suffering because it drives the machines closer to sentience.
+2
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
I regularly play evil characters in games with moral choices because I find that much more interesting than the typical heroes' jaunt with all the typical beats you would see over and over again but I find the notion that it says something about the players kind of insulting.
Been playing RPGs like that for awhile and I'm pretty sure I still find thievery, cruelty and murder just as abhorrent as I ever did.
Video games aren't some morality test that secretly reveal whether you're a monster or not, they're just ridiculous fictional stories far removed from reality and real life decision making processes for me.
Wouldn't blow up a WW host with C4 and then eat him though. West World is kind of an interestingly disturbing take on a Bethesda game and how far you could take that concept by putting it in real life. When it gets to the point where the NPCs have real flesh and blood, thats where I would draw the line and I would become unsettled.
I'll do an evil playthrough if there's an interesting reason to do so, but mostly I do goody selfless stuff because it makes me feel good.
I think that's one of the big hurdles for doing an evil playthrough in many games, there's not really an interesting reason to do so. A lot of games take you through the exact same story beats and game play as a good play through just with different cinematics that often make you feel worse.
Bethesda has been better than some with the TES games with Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood missions playing out very differently from other quest lines though they still suffer from having no main plot quests react to being a less than scrupulous character. Not so much their Fallout games.
Or they never played an open world RPG and just played shooters. I had a coworker where Fallout 4 was the first RPG they played. And they kept getting stuck because they thought they should be able to shoot everyone.
I have to admit, I am hard-pressed to name a modern shooter with a single-player mode where you are permitted to shoot anyone at any time.
Or they never played an open world RPG and just played shooters. I had a coworker where Fallout 4 was the first RPG they played. And they kept getting stuck because they thought they should be able to shoot everyone.
I have to admit, I am hard-pressed to name a modern shooter with a single-player mode where you are permitted to shoot anyone at any time.
Prey. It even opens up a late game side quest and has an achievement for it.
It's also really not a standard shooter and is the kind of game where the designers were fine with the idea of players breaking from the intended routes through. Most modern shooters insist you follow the script.
Eh, the whole thing that they are open to users tinkering with the esls and are open to releasing esm content addresses two of my big concerns. They still need to think about pricing though.
The only thing right now I can see getting though is the shotgun. Maybe the furniture pack if sim settlements used it at some point.
I never do evil runs because I I have yet to find something motivates me to do so. Most of what I find is evil for the sake of evil, I can't think of a game that offered me a choice to be evil and made me invested in it. Like all great villains have a over all goal, or something that pushes them over the edge. I have found that in a get yet.
Unless....
Unless I did and I was so convinced I was right I didn't notice how many Innocents my actions killed.
......Oh no
+1
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
The reason to do evil runs, the main idea behind doing it for me has always been amusement and personal gain.
I like it when doing the right thing is portrayed as hard and just throwing people under the bus is a shortcut to success. Sure, you probably came out of it quicker and wealthier but you're also a piece of shit. I think that says more than two slightly difference choices with the same reward.
Seeing how the game world twists and turns unexpectedly or tragically in the absence of of the usual cliche savior adventure, Those outcomes have always been more interesting to me than just going town to town fixing everybody's problems and saving the world.
I find many RPGs these days require an "evil" run to see everything they have to offer. Sure, it's the same story beats as a "good" run but there's different dialogue, maybe an NPC reacts differently or has something new to say. Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Also because, well, there tends to be less "evil" content, so you get through it faster.
Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Also because, well, there tends to be less "evil" content, so you get through it faster.
It does depend on how the content is laid out. A few games have had an optional evil route that could be unlocked but made you actually do some extra work for it. Arcanum comes to mind for one with being perfectly fine letting an evil character proceed down the normal route but having at more than one place where a big shift in how you get to the end is available for evil characters. Of all things, West of Loathing is another where usurping the head necromancer's throne is never spelled out for you and the whole side plot that would let you even normally end its reign is totally optional.
My first playthrough of any game is always, not necessarily evil, but definitely lazy and cowardly. I often end up having to abandon that idea, because most games aren't equipped to handle it. It's antithetical to "going on an adventure", which is what most games that offer that level of roleplaying are fundamentally about.
But for games that are broadly designed enough to allow for that sort of character, the results can be unexpected. I'll often end up joining a game's "evil" faction because it seems like the path of least resistance, at least early on. But I'll also put a lot of skill points into diplomacy and stealth, because my character is too timid to fight, even when the odds are greatly in his favor. I find my character becoming a sort of villainous pacifist who helps bad people rise to power through bloodless means.
It took me a few years to realize that I've actually been roleplaying my real life self the entire time. :?
Eh, the whole thing that they are open to users tinkering with the esls and are open to releasing esm content addresses two of my big concerns. They still need to think about pricing though.
The only thing right now I can see getting though is the shotgun. Maybe the furniture pack if sim settlements used it at some point.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If Bethesda fixes the damn thing downloading all its content to my PC irrespective of whether I purchase any of it, I'll be fine with Creation Club. I'll install the mod that removes the invasive CC "updates" from my main menu and never worry about it again. People who want to pay money for over-priced re-skins will be free to do so and it won't affect me at all.
At least, until the next game when we'll have to see just how much further this encroaches.
My first playthrough of any game is always, not necessarily evil, but definitely lazy and cowardly. I often end up having to abandon that idea, because most games aren't equipped to handle it. It's antithetical to "going on an adventure", which is what most games that offer that level of roleplaying are fundamentally about.
But for games that are broadly designed enough to allow for that sort of character, the results can be unexpected. I'll often end up joining a game's "evil" faction because it seems like the path of least resistance, at least early on. But I'll also put a lot of skill points into diplomacy and stealth, because my character is too timid to fight, even when the odds are greatly in his favor. I find my character becoming a sort of villainous pacifist who helps bad people rise to power through bloodless means.
It took me a few years to realize that I've actually been roleplaying my real life self the entire time. :?
I find many RPGs these days require an "evil" run to see everything they have to offer. Sure, it's the same story beats as a "good" run but there's different dialogue, maybe an NPC reacts differently or has something new to say. Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Hm, yes. "I didn't want to kill those people, I just wanted to see what would happen if I did!"
I find many RPGs these days require an "evil" run to see everything they have to offer. Sure, it's the same story beats as a "good" run but there's different dialogue, maybe an NPC reacts differently or has something new to say. Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Hm, yes. "I didn't want to kill those people, I just wanted to see what would happen if I did!"
Don't you have anything better to do?
I'm pretty sure the fact that we're talking about playing video games already answers that question. It's leisure time.
I find many RPGs these days require an "evil" run to see everything they have to offer. Sure, it's the same story beats as a "good" run but there's different dialogue, maybe an NPC reacts differently or has something new to say. Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Hm, yes. "I didn't want to kill those people, I just wanted to see what would happen if I did!"
Don't you have anything better to do?
This is extremely goosey. I went through and explained why on subsequent play throughs I dont mind an "evil" run. Did you bother to read from atop that moral high horse?
Everything: Konphujun(#1458)
+3
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
I find many RPGs these days require an "evil" run to see everything they have to offer. Sure, it's the same story beats as a "good" run but there's different dialogue, maybe an NPC reacts differently or has something new to say. Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Hm, yes. "I didn't want to kill those people, I just wanted to see what would happen if I did!"
Don't you have anything better to do?
This is a really weird way to respond.
He can play however he wants, why does it bother you?
Can I get an equivalent mount to the Moral High Horse if I do an evil playthrough? Perhaps an Untrustworthy Short Steed?
The dastardly donkey can be yours, yes.
Allows you to instantly skip/fast travel to the next-to-last stage of a quest, so that - instead of actually finishing it yourself - you can set up an elaborate scheme to defeat the Hero(s).
I find many RPGs these days require an "evil" run to see everything they have to offer. Sure, it's the same story beats as a "good" run but there's different dialogue, maybe an NPC reacts differently or has something new to say. Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Hm, yes. "I didn't want to kill those people, I just wanted to see what would happen if I did!"
Don't you have anything better to do?
This is a really weird way to respond.
Right, sorry. It's something of a catchphrase in a fairly famous arty game that addresses the idea of killing NPCs to see what will happen, but it's also kind of important spoilers if you haven't played it? The subject matter seemed too appropriate to pass up.
I find many RPGs these days require an "evil" run to see everything they have to offer. Sure, it's the same story beats as a "good" run but there's different dialogue, maybe an NPC reacts differently or has something new to say. Moreover, "evil" games tend to be faster as they tend to allow a quicker acquisition of in game wealth and power. Why bother with helping the struggling colonists on my 7th run when I can execute them all and both shortcut a quest I've done 6 times and get new dialogue and reactions while keeping all the benefits of doing it the "right" way?
Hm, yes. "I didn't want to kill those people, I just wanted to see what would happen if I did!"
Don't you have anything better to do?
This is a really weird way to respond.
Right, sorry. It's something of a catchphrase in a fairly famous arty game that addresses the idea of killing NPCs to see what will happen, but it's also kind of important spoilers if you haven't played it? The subject matter seemed too appropriate to pass up.
To be fair, that's a phrase that's not in any way unique to that game, and - given the lack of tone and body-language cues in written text - could readily be interpreted as being a genuine reprimand.
Indeed, that is how I interpreted it, as well. I'm glad to see it was the wrong interpretation!
So back to Creation Club. It seems like the line they're drawing between their stuff and "paid mods" is that they're taking responsibility for translating it into all available languages and making sure there are no compatibility or save-corruption issues, as opposed to letting anyone stick a price tag on any mod they upload and pocket a percentage.
I think that's a meaningful distinction, but I know that's not a universal opinion. So, what's the difference between DLC and "paid mods"?
Making sure there are no compatibility or save issues is a funny one considering their unmodded games have problems there.
Is it just a better way to do paid mods? Sure, but it's still paid mods. You have modders making mods and then getting paid. It's less messy but similar enough in premise.
It may be better than before but it's still not for me. Even if they end up making some meaningful content, I swore after Mass Effect 2 to never use funbucks again. It's just a shady as fuck business practice that tries to milk even more money out of you. $7 item? Oh sorry we only sell $5 or $10 packs of funbucks!
Posts
However, in open world games like those Bethesda makes, I'm never the sort to commit random genocide just because I can. I might be a dick to people and steal from them in these games, but I usually do not commit random murder unless the NPC in question has done something to really irritate me. I have assassinated Heimskr, for example, and probably tormented Nazeem a few times, but even in those cases I'm generally 'live and let live'.
On the other extreme is a former co-worker of mine, who I always thought was a little off. One day, back when a few of us were all playing Fallout 3 at the same time, he complained to me that he didn't have anywhere to sell his loot.
"What do you mean?" I asked, confused, "There are merchants in Megaton, Rivet City, etc."
Him: I killed them.
Me: You killed all the merchants? In every town?
Him: Well, I killed everyone, so yes.
Me: Why?! Why would you go around killing everyone?
Him: The game let me.
I don't think it's fair to say that people who murder NPCs in video games are automatically nutcases or sociopaths, but I do think it means something, for sure.
For me my very first play through is from the gut. Choices are made how I think I would make them. Generally this run is "good".
After that though each character I make is its own person. Some I play as sarcastic assholes, others are noble heroes and yes some are straight up evil bastards.
This is partially speaking from my own experience and time playing ruthless assholes and even the occasional even more horrible person. I know myself, and I've seen real world examples of such things, even just text transcripts, and they left me sick to the stomach years later even thinking about them. I resent real evil just as much as any other sane person, and my time playing games may have just strengthened that resentment.
I don't even know if you can really say that a true sociopath or psychopath is more likely to play himself in games. Maybe they like to save kittens when they roleplay
Similar approach, though I'll still take the sarcastic asshole dialogue option even on good characters given the option.
Though West of Loathing was a bit of an outlier in that I went for all the Ruthless options my first time through. Ditto Fable 2 and 3. I think the tone of the game matters a great deal for me. The more serious the tone of a game, the tougher it can be to get into an evil playthrough.
Planescape: Torment had a lot of evil dialogue options that were more about being emotionally manipulative as opposed to cartoonish super villainy and was not one I could really keep on going with.
West of Loathing is entirely flippant given its humorous nature with even heroic characters being significantly mischievous (one of the three character classes is Snake Oiler) and the Ruthless options going more over the top as you go on (It starts with shooting a bandit lookout while he's asleep on the job followed by drowning another bandit who fell asleep in a washtub and then proceeds to things like having a giant spider encase a gang in webs and letting it eat them instead of arresting them).
Fable 2 and 3 were both not entirely serious settings but also did something different in letting you be evil and devious while still being honest and lawful. I may have instituted a tax on children in Fable 3 but I also kept my promise to end child labor.
The Elder Scrolls are also one of the outliers where I will play a murderous ass my first run through just because the Dark Brotherhood quests are usually the best in a given entry. They also often change the tone of the game from serious somewhat dark fantasy to black comedy.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
I'll do an evil playthrough all day long if the game's story supports it because I like seeing all of a game's content, but i'm not just going to do that stuff randomly for no reason.
E: It was the invocation of Westworld that got me I guess, because I like the show but that character sucks and I hate that they basically endorse his viewpoint as natural and correct. "Humans suck and we're all garbage animals oh well" is pretty dull from a storytelling perspective. At least I can still get enjoyment from the robots probably murdering all of these awful people if that happens.
The point is that there is no good or evil in a world where actions have zero consequences. Man in Black wants a world with consequences (also it seems he is a nice guy philanthropist outside the game).
Westworld is just an open world sandbox with no repercussions to the player. Players literally can't die or loose and anyone you kill comes back the next day. It is like playing GTA with Godmode on.
For a fantastic run down check out Wisecrack's video on it in the spoilers,
Been playing RPGs like that for awhile and I'm pretty sure I still find thievery, cruelty and murder just as abhorrent as I ever did.
Video games aren't some morality test that secretly reveal whether you're a monster or not, they're just ridiculous fictional stories far removed from reality and real life decision making processes for me.
Wouldn't blow up a WW host with C4 and then eat him though. West World is kind of an interestingly disturbing take on a Bethesda game and how far you could take that concept by putting it in real life. When it gets to the point where the NPCs have real flesh and blood, thats where I would draw the line and I would become unsettled.
I think that's one of the big hurdles for doing an evil playthrough in many games, there's not really an interesting reason to do so. A lot of games take you through the exact same story beats and game play as a good play through just with different cinematics that often make you feel worse.
Bethesda has been better than some with the TES games with Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood missions playing out very differently from other quest lines though they still suffer from having no main plot quests react to being a less than scrupulous character. Not so much their Fallout games.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
I have to admit, I am hard-pressed to name a modern shooter with a single-player mode where you are permitted to shoot anyone at any time.
Prey. It even opens up a late game side quest and has an achievement for it.
It's also really not a standard shooter and is the kind of game where the designers were fine with the idea of players breaking from the intended routes through. Most modern shooters insist you follow the script.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
The only thing right now I can see getting though is the shotgun. Maybe the furniture pack if sim settlements used it at some point.
Unless....
Unless I did and I was so convinced I was right I didn't notice how many Innocents my actions killed.
I like it when doing the right thing is portrayed as hard and just throwing people under the bus is a shortcut to success. Sure, you probably came out of it quicker and wealthier but you're also a piece of shit. I think that says more than two slightly difference choices with the same reward.
Seeing how the game world twists and turns unexpectedly or tragically in the absence of of the usual cliche savior adventure, Those outcomes have always been more interesting to me than just going town to town fixing everybody's problems and saving the world.
Also because, well, there tends to be less "evil" content, so you get through it faster.
It does depend on how the content is laid out. A few games have had an optional evil route that could be unlocked but made you actually do some extra work for it. Arcanum comes to mind for one with being perfectly fine letting an evil character proceed down the normal route but having at more than one place where a big shift in how you get to the end is available for evil characters. Of all things, West of Loathing is another where usurping the head necromancer's throne is never spelled out for you and the whole side plot that would let you even normally end its reign is totally optional.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
But for games that are broadly designed enough to allow for that sort of character, the results can be unexpected. I'll often end up joining a game's "evil" faction because it seems like the path of least resistance, at least early on. But I'll also put a lot of skill points into diplomacy and stealth, because my character is too timid to fight, even when the odds are greatly in his favor. I find my character becoming a sort of villainous pacifist who helps bad people rise to power through bloodless means.
It took me a few years to realize that I've actually been roleplaying my real life self the entire time. :?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If Bethesda fixes the damn thing downloading all its content to my PC irrespective of whether I purchase any of it, I'll be fine with Creation Club. I'll install the mod that removes the invasive CC "updates" from my main menu and never worry about it again. People who want to pay money for over-priced re-skins will be free to do so and it won't affect me at all.
At least, until the next game when we'll have to see just how much further this encroaches.
That got real dark.
Hm, yes. "I didn't want to kill those people, I just wanted to see what would happen if I did!"
Don't you have anything better to do?
I'm pretty sure the fact that we're talking about playing video games already answers that question. It's leisure time.
This is extremely goosey. I went through and explained why on subsequent play throughs I dont mind an "evil" run. Did you bother to read from atop that moral high horse?
He can play however he wants, why does it bother you?
For only 500 Falloutbucks!
The dastardly donkey can be yours, yes.
Allows you to instantly skip/fast travel to the next-to-last stage of a quest, so that - instead of actually finishing it yourself - you can set up an elaborate scheme to defeat the Hero(s).
Right, sorry. It's something of a catchphrase in a fairly famous arty game that addresses the idea of killing NPCs to see what will happen, but it's also kind of important spoilers if you haven't played it? The subject matter seemed too appropriate to pass up.
(spoiler here)
As someone who played the hell out of that game, abit disappointed in myself for not getting it until now.
Indeed, that is how I interpreted it, as well. I'm glad to see it was the wrong interpretation!
So back to Creation Club. It seems like the line they're drawing between their stuff and "paid mods" is that they're taking responsibility for translating it into all available languages and making sure there are no compatibility or save-corruption issues, as opposed to letting anyone stick a price tag on any mod they upload and pocket a percentage.
I think that's a meaningful distinction, but I know that's not a universal opinion. So, what's the difference between DLC and "paid mods"?
Is it just a better way to do paid mods? Sure, but it's still paid mods. You have modders making mods and then getting paid. It's less messy but similar enough in premise.
It may be better than before but it's still not for me. Even if they end up making some meaningful content, I swore after Mass Effect 2 to never use funbucks again. It's just a shady as fuck business practice that tries to milk even more money out of you. $7 item? Oh sorry we only sell $5 or $10 packs of funbucks!