Mass Effect - Review @ Boomtown

[Dhruin]

Boomtown has a review (http://xbox.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=15304) of Mass Effect that says the setting is derivative but the story is still outstanding. The score is 9/10 and here's a bit on that famous dialogue system:
The dialogue system meanwhile, is equally impressive. It provides you with the ability to choose next dialogue option before current speaker has finished talking, thus eliminating the long pauses in conversation which have plagued Bioware games in the past. These options appear on a wheel at the bottom of the screen, and supply the context of your character’s dialogue rather than the entire text. Additionally, the options always appear in the same place on the wheel – top right for paragon (good) dialogue, bottom right for renegade (evil), centre right for the middle of the road, with the left hand side providing further investigation options, along with charm and intimidation, dependant on your skills. This means that if you are playing a consistent role you don’t even have to pay attention to the text – you can just flick the stick to the relevant position when the wheel pops up, and thus keep listening to the conversation without a break in concentration. This system is backed up by superb voice acting throughout, and does much to create and maintain the impressive cinematic style of the game.
Plagued?
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=7462)

[BillSeurer]

Paragon is not "good" and renegade is not "evil".

[fatBastard()]

True, but then again ...

Paragon points are often awarded for being open minded, understanding and polite whereas Renegade points are achieved by being self centered, bullying (I said it so it IS a word ;)) and having a "my way or the highway" kind of attitude. Though clearly not as extreme as the Light Side vs. Dark Side in KoTOR, it still isn't "pleasant" to play a Renegade in Mass Effect.

[Prime Junta]

Wonderful. Role-playing reduced to "click A for good, B for evil."

It's a shame Bioware can't seem to go beyond cliché in their good/evil stuff. It's clear they try, like the Closed Fist/Open Palm thing in Jade Empire, but somehow it always ends up as strangling kittens versus clothing the hungry and feeding the naked. Or whatever.

[Thaurin]

It would be very hard to have many shades of grey, I think. Even now, you have many false dialogue options, like in most RPG's from the past. They could probably make a really good RPG with a lot of depth to your choices, but you'd be done with it in five hours. Replay value would be high, but I'm not sure if that'd be enough to build a compelling story.

What would be an example of an RPG that did this right?

[Prime Junta]

The Witcher.

[Dusk]

Wonderful. Role-playing reduced to "click A for good, B for evil."

It's a shame Bioware can't seem to go beyond cliché in their good/evil stuff. It's clear they try, like the Closed Fist/Open Palm thing in Jade Empire, but somehow it always ends up as strangling kittens versus clothing the hungry and feeding the naked. Or whatever.
This is one of the reasons why I am done with Bioware formula. The story lines feel very "repetitive."

It would be very hard to have many shades of grey, I think. Even now, you have many false dialogue options, like in most RPG's from the past. They could probably make a really good RPG with a lot of depth to your choices, but you'd be done with it in five hours. Replay value would be high, but I'm not sure if that'd be enough to build a compelling story.

What would be an example of an RPG that did this right?
Although I haven't played the Witcher yet, it seems to have achieved something interesting, which allows the players sympathize with the protagonist as well as letting them feel a part of the imaginary world. Also, System Shocks and Deus Exes offered some interesting choices but Bioshock seems to have been simplified for mass audiences in this respect.

I haven't played the Witcher yet but, if I am right, it seems to have managed to do what Deus EX: Invisible War couldn't. Without implementing the clear-cut good and evil scheme, it lets the players feel the choice more personal by offering a sympathiz-able protagonist and an immersive world, which has deeper similarities in the players' world.

[fatBastard()]

It should be mentioned that no matter whether you go down the Renegade path or you go down the Paragon path (or stay on neutral ground for that matter), you're still trying to save the galaxy. The Renegade path is not about you seeking power for yourself, but rather about following a strict military code where human needs outweigh those of other races. You're not hesitant about taking on the role of judge, jury and executioner if the need arises, but even if the end result is executing the person in question it is always based on firm belief that you're doing the right thing for the good of humanity. I've only run across a single quest where the Renegade Shepard's ego resulted in a bloodbath but not only was that the intend of the quest giver all along but this quest is also only available for Renegade players.

In Mass Effect you can often achieve the same end by manipulating the situation using your Charm (Paragon) or Intimidate (Renegade) abilities - if you've invested enough points into these abilities - so unlike the "Kill the Kitty" vs "Save the Kitty" choice, you don't always have to choose between the extremes (i.e. Good vs. Evil), but rather what arguments you'll use.

Yes, it is still far from perfect, but unlike most other alignment games where evil equals stupid, Mass Effect's "Evil" path is actually playable and makes sense if seen from a bitter perspective.

*edit*
Oh and the paths in The Witcher is mostly about choosing a side in a conflict. The is no good or evil, merely shades of grey. Don't get me wrong I love the Witcher and have nothing bad to say about the game, but I think it is a bit unfair using the Witcher "choice model" as a comparison when talking about Good vs Evil choices.

[skavenhorde]

Oh and the paths in The Witcher is mostly about choosing a side in a conflict. The is no good or evil, merely shades of grey. Don't get me wrong I love the Witcher and have nothing bad to say about the game, but I think it is a bit unfair using the Witcher "choice model" as a comparison when talking about Good vs Evil choices.

The Witcher is a perfect choice for making a comparison between the usual Good vs Evil choices. Take the first act for example, do you side with the witch who, from my point of view, has done her fair share of evil deeds and good or do you side with the more disgusting villagers who definatly have done more evil deeds than the witch.

You said that The Witcher is all about shades of grey. Well tell me then what is good? What is evil? There are no pure good and pure evil choices in life. There is only life. Is it evil to kill a deer to feed your family? or good because you can feed your family. Well then, what about if that deer's young died because you killed it. Then is it evil? Or let's take a more human aproach. Is it evil for yourself to steal from someone to feed yourself and your family? What about the person you stole from, they might not be able to feed their family because you stole from them, is it evil then? or good? Let's take a more religious view of good and evil for a second because that is where the words good and evil really come from anyways. Is it good for a religion to convert other religions to their faith or is it evil because they are subverting a people and their culture and possibly destorying families in the process (cults would be a good example of this). So you see in MY perception there are no pure good or evil choices, only your perception of what these choices mean to you.

With the witcher its all about perception (just like real life). Do you percieve the villagers are doing whats right or the witch. It does come down to making a choice in the matter but isn't that what real life is all about, picking a side that you think to be the right.

[Thaurin]

Mass Effect is all about playing a role in a story. It doesn't really work as an open-ended galaxy where you can do whatever. Yes, you can go wherever you want and explore at some point, but the side-quests usually aren't that spectacular, anyway. It's a different kind of game, I think, and Mass Effect is good for what it tries to do (make you part of the story).

Another thing that I want to say is that people that try to play the game as a shooter a la Gears of Wars will totally hate the game. It doesn't have very good FPS mechanics and it will feel weird. It's much more fun to use your skills to good effect. Just thought I'd mention that after seeing someone in a video podcast say he hated it and "died like a thousand times."

[fatBastard()]

The Witcher is a perfect choice for making a comparison between the usual Good vs Evil choices. Take the first act for example, do you side with the witch who, from my point of view, has done her fair share of evil deeds and good or do you side with the more disgusting villagers who definatly have done more evil deeds than the witch.

You said that The Witcher is all about shades of grey. Well tell me then what is good? What is evil? There are no pure good and pure evil choices in life. There is only life. Is it evil to kill a deer to feed your family? or good because you can feed your family. Well then, what about if that deer's young died because you killed it. Then is it evil? Or let's take a more human aproach. Is it evil for yourself to steal from someone to feed yourself and your family? What about the person you stole from, they might not be able to feed their family because you stole from them, is it evil then? or good? Let's take a more religious view of good and evil for a second because that is where the words good and evil really come from anyways. Is it good for a religion to convert other religions to their faith or is it evil because they are subverting a people and their culture and possibly destorying families in the process (cults would be a good example of this). So you see in MY perception there are no pure good or evil choices, only your perception of what these choices mean to you.

With the witcher its all about perception (just like real life). Do you percieve the villagers are doing whats right or the witch. It does come down to making a choice in the matter but isn't that what real life is all about, picking a side that you think to be the right.

Woah, time out. I never said anything about Real Life Good vs Evil. I thought we were talking about games here. Coming from a gaming scene dominated by D&D titles in the RPG department, I guess I based my measuring stick in terms of Good vs. Evil from experiences with these games.

Playing as a typical D&D Paladin one would gain the "Fallen" status faster than one could say "Smite Evil" if either side was chosen in the end of Act I in The Witcher. Neither are "Good". It is purely a choice of the lesser evil (as she so pointedly mentions herself). That was my point when I said "shades of grey" and while it is perfectly valid to request that more games seek this kind of moral choice in games, it is still not fair IMO to invoke "The Witcher approach" when talking about Good vs. Evil choices.

Again, I really love The Witcher and I think it is one of the best games I've played in a long time, but that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy other games as well.

[BillSeurer]

...I really love The Witcher and I think it is one of the best games I've played in a long time, but that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy other games as well.

That's a good point. Waaay too many posters here seem to think that the only good games are the specific small list of games that they like and that all other games are bad and anyone who likes a game not on their list (or doesn't like one on their list) is stupid, evil, or whatever. There are a lot of people who like Baldur's Gate 2 and Oblivion and The Witcher and Mass Effect and Planescape Torment and whatever (and all possible subsets thereof).

[Prime Junta]

Oh and the paths in The Witcher is mostly about choosing a side in a conflict. The is no good or evil, merely shades of grey. Don't get me wrong I love the Witcher and have nothing bad to say about the game, but I think it is a bit unfair using the Witcher "choice model" as a comparison when talking about Good vs Evil choices.

That's precisely it. The evil in The Witcher is understandable, realistic, motivated, and logical -- including but not limited to things you have to take a stand on. The fact that things are rarely unambiguously good or evil only makes it more interesting: evil is often very much about your point of view.

I for one can't fathom what's so difficult about doing evil right in computer games, since there are plenty of examples in literature and movies to draw from.

[Prime Junta]

Woah, time out. I never said anything about Real Life Good vs Evil. I thought we were talking about games here. Coming from a gaming scene dominated by D&D titles in the RPG department, I guess I based my measuring stick in terms of Good vs. Evil from experiences with these games.

And that's probably pretty much the reason *why* evil is so lame in most cRPG's: the D&D influence.

That said, it's not hard to do evil right in D&D either -- take a character in my campaign, for example. He's a veteran on many wars, fearless, honorable, and a true Roman patriot. He also thinks nothing of burning down a village, torturing the men to death, raping the women, and herding off the survivors to slavery, if he suspects the villagers may be sheltering some rebels.

Oh, and he's working for a guy called Caligula in order to get Tiberius (whom he considers a usurper) "retired."

In other words, he's unquestionably evil, but for good or at least believable reasons.

[Thaurin]

..I really love The Witcher and I think it is one of the best games I've played in a long time, but that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy other games as well.
That's a good point. Waaay too many posters here seem to think that the only good games are the specific small list of games that they like and that all other games are bad and anyone who likes a game not on their list (or doesn't like one on their list) is stupid, evil, or whatever. There are a lot of people who like Baldur's Gate 2 and Oblivion and The Witcher and Mass Effect and Planescape Torment and whatever (and all possible subsets thereof).

Exactly! I agree with this. Some people are always rooting for the same kind of RPG and decry any deviation or change in direction that is unleashed. I like many kinds of games. I'd really hate to play only the Temple of Elemental Evils, Plainscape: Torments and The Witchers for the rest of my live. That said, I like evil in games both ways. You can have your realistic, understandable evil if you like, but what about the cliche, mad scientist evil? I like that, too.

[magerette]

Gaming boards everywhere are full of elitists, sometimes psychopathically so it seems. :) There's definitely an ego factor involved, and often a corresponding cliquism, but buried in the sludge of personal preferences there is also the desire for excellence.

Most of the posters here play a pretty wide variety of games, though there are some that have a crusade for 'teh old times' going on. We get resistance often for posting news about games that diverge too far from the percieved "RPG" category--for instance Bioshock, or Space Seige--but in general, there's a lot of interest on the boards for all types of rpgs, and other genres as well--strat games, indies, shooters and the dreaded action-rpg even.

That said, many people are extremely passionate about what they like and dislike in the RPG realm. The end effect of this can be vituperative namecalling or it can be a valid attempt to hold the genre to an exacting(if self-defined) standard. Good and bad points to everything. Without the passion, you have blandness ruling.

[txa1265]

The Witcher.

QFT.

Actually, the choices you make in Hammer & Sickle can make the game end *really* fast as well ... ;)

[Dusk]

I like many kinds of games. I'd really hate to play only the Temple of Elemental Evils, Plainscape: Torments and The Witchers for the rest of my live.
The games you named here are all different and unique. The main reason why I stopped playing Bioware games is that I feel they are not even trying to be unique anymore. Basically, they are using the same formula with rather superficial changes. No matter if it is in FPS or RPG genres, I have got an impression that Bioware becomes yet another company which are nailed to IP marketing scheme.

[fatBastard()]

That's precisely it. The evil in The Witcher is understandable, realistic, motivated, and logical -- including but not limited to things you have to take a stand on. The fact that things are rarely unambiguously good or evil only makes it more interesting: evil is often very much about your point of view.

I for one can't fathom what's so difficult about doing evil right in computer games, since there are plenty of examples in literature and movies to draw from.

Aahh ... re-reading the entire thread I seem to have caught the ball and charged off blindly in the wrong direction with it :blush:

What you're saying is of course absolutely true. Though not even close to a Good vs. Evil choice model, it is a much more "realistic" and believable set of choices you're presented with in The Witcher. Heck, I sat staring the at the screen for a long time before I finally decided which faction I was going to support and that is a great example of an actual CHOICE rather than picking the correct color corresponding to the alignment you chose in the character generation screen.

Sorry about misunderstanding what you were saying when you mentioned the Witcher.

[BillSeurer]

Aahh ... re-reading the entire thread I seem to have caught the ball and charged off blindly in the wrong direction with it :blush:

What you're saying is of course absolutely true. Though not even close to a Good vs. Evil choice model, it is a much more "realistic" and believable set of choices you're presented with in The Witcher. Heck, I sat staring the at the screen for a long time before I finally decided which faction I was going to support and that is a great example of an actual CHOICE rather than picking the correct color corresponding to the alignment you chose in the character generation screen.

Mass Effect doesn't have "good" and "evil" choices either. There's no "alignment" or any such nonsense. Or are you comparing to some other game(s)?

Playing devil's advocate here, so everything hinges on one choice between two options made in one conversation in The Witcher. How is that so believable?

[Brother None]

It would be very hard to have many shades of grey, I think.

Actually, it's very hard to not have many shades of grey. Because shades of grey is reality, it's how life is, and art is a reflection of life. That's why movies and books have never had much problems with it once you go beyond pre-school writing and the really bad fantasy novels (Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth).

Writing in games really is at a new low if shades of grey are supposed to be "hard".

That's a good point. Waaay too many posters here seem to think that the only good games are the specific small list of games that they like and that all other games are bad and anyone who likes a game not on their list (or doesn't like one on their list) is stupid, evil, or whatever. There are a lot of people who like Baldur's Gate 2 and Oblivion and The Witcher and Mass Effect and Planescape Torment and whatever (and all possible subsets thereof).

This is a complaint one sees levelled at the Codex a lot. But the simple fact of the matter is...there aren't many games that do the things Codexers and some Watchers want. That means the argument "you only want this!" becomes a bit peripheral, because it'd be a lot easier to live with the existence of Diablo being called an RPG if on the other hand there was still a strong current of design in favour of Witcher-esque games.

Instead, games are rollderdieboldering down the hill towards the kind of mass appeal and shallow game design that's marked BioWare since day 1 (sorry, I don't like BioWare). There's nothing wrong with BioWare's game, but the funny thing is I could flip your argument upside down and say that right now, BioWare (and Oblivion) is the only RPG design school around. Why would anyone want all games to be like that?

See, you take exception at people arguing for one type of RPG "in theory", but in doing so you missed the fact that those people are arguing against the fact that design is running towards one type of RPG in reality.

[magerette]

The "way too many" post was originally by BillSeurer, actually.

I agree with your point, though--which is what I meant about holding the genre to some sort of standard.

What people resent IMO is being marginalized as not true rpg fans if they happen to have tastes that lead them to enjoy Oblivion or Mass Effect or whatever--when the argument becomes "You are an idiot" instead of "This is the flaw in the game that ruins it for me."

But I for one would certainly not like all games to follow the biowarean template, or any other template--games should stand on their own merits and not just be a reflection of style, nostalgia or hype.

[Thaurin]

Writing in games really is at a new low if shades of grey are supposed to be "hard".

Yes, one shade. Or two. Or maybe I didn't explain well enough. I guess I meant amount of choices. Shades of grey just means perspectives that aren't that distant from each other. Wildly differing viewpoints that are clearly good and evil aren't necessarily worse or less intelligent in games, in my opinion. But what about endless possibilities?

What I meant was more or better choice than just choosing shade of gray #1 or shade of gray #2, or good or evil. So it has more to do with cause and consequence, really being able to affect the world. Something like that goes counter in a way to the linear progression of a story, making it more of an open-ended affair... but it's rather hard to pull off well.

It's a different sort of game that way and not better or worse. Linear doesn't equal bad.

[Dusk]

The "way too many" post was originally by BillSeurer, actually.
Which is totally out of character and not hard to tell, though.

when the argument becomes "You are an idiot" instead of "This is the flaw in the game that ruins it for me."
Well, of course, some diplomacy would help but I didn't see someone calling names...yet. ;)

To be fair, I think Bioware did something "new" in the past by bringing tabletop RPG feel into CRPG world with BG series and NWN franchise.

However, at the same time, I think Bioware (and D&D influence) fixated the image of RPG to mainly generic fantasy/Sci-Fi settings absent of deeper themes. I'm glad to hear the reputation of the Witcher but, personally, I'd like to see CRPG with more intriguing themes even on par with those in novels and films. I guess I am another who is feeling the current major "RPG" trends are going to the opposite direction.

[Squeek]

Actually, it's very hard to not have many shades of grey. Because shades of grey is reality, it's how life is, and art is a reflection of life.I guess you must sell art or something. Because as far as I can tell, writing is a lot of the problem. Not that it's always so bad, but that there's never much of it. It's simple, flat, basic, flavorless, boring, blah (Oh, no! Maybe it really is an accurate reflection of our lives!).

...those people are arguing against the fact that design is running towards one type of RPG in reality.Yep. The idea of making cRPG more like RPG is often openly scorned, even at The Codex. Not by everyone, but by most everyone. Some people get hostile about it.

RPG is a collaborative effort. The game has to contribute and enhance what's happening in the player's imagination and not be limited by the constraints of arcade game design. It's a game you play with the game you're playing.

[Acleacius]

I think it is a bit unfair using the Witcher "choice model" as a comparison when talking about Good vs Evil choices.
I agree.

The Witcher is a perfect choice for making a comparison between the usual Good vs Evil choices. Take the first act for example, do you side with the witch who
Please if you could name evil acts she has done? If you can you will be the first.

There are no pure good and pure evil choices in life.
Seriously, you must be joking, right?
Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, Hate Crimes, Race Crimes, Gender Crimes, hopefully your joking. :)

posters here seem to think that the only good games are the specific small list of games that they like and that all other games are bad and anyone who likes a game not on their list (or doesn't like one on their list) is stupid, evil, or whatever.
Nicely put. :)

That's precisely it. The evil in The Witcher is understandable, realistic, motivated, and logical -- including but not limited to things you have to take a stand on
Example, please? :)

Edit
I was posting as I read and ran out of space before your example, I will get it in my next post,

And that's probably pretty much the reason *why* evil is so lame in most cRPG's: the D&D influence.
I disagree, true evil is not possible in games other than the way they are depicted currently. How can you be true evil and survive in a town, first place no one would talk to you and if you kill everyone then you have no one to control, minuplate and subjugate to your selfish will.
So once again provide some context or preferably a specfic example of an evil scenario, which you think devs should/could/need to use. :)

Gaming boards everywhere are full of elitists, sometimes psychopathically so it seems.
Hey stop making fun of me! :p

[Prime Junta]

Exactly! I agree with this. Some people are always rooting for the same kind of RPG and decry any deviation or change in direction that is unleashed. I like many kinds of games. I'd really hate to play only the Temple of Elemental Evils, Plainscape: Torments and The Witchers for the rest of my live. That said, I like evil in games both ways. You can have your realistic, understandable evil if you like, but what about the cliche, mad scientist evil? I like that, too.

I for one don't object to that, at all. My problem is simply that we ONLY get clichéd, mad-scientist, dark-tower, psycho-killer evil -- a very, very, VERY few cRPG's excepted.

However, there is something else: I, and I have a pretty strong suspicion that I'm in the majority with this, have a visceral dislike of playing the "psychopathic evil" kind of evil that's on offer in cRPG's. That means that pretty much half the game is wasted on me simply because it turns me off. OTOH I would be *very* interested in playing a "believably evil" character, with understandable motivations and what not.

In other words, I believe that "realistic evil" would not only make for better "art" (which I do believe), but that it would also make for games that are more interesting to a larger number of people.

[aries100]

I haven't played Mass Effect yet, but I would really have liked if you, as Shepard, could take sides in the conflict. The Renegade options seems to be 'the jack bauer in space' option the two Bioware doctors (ray&greg) talked about earlier. There's no way to side with Saren, as I understand it in Mass Effect? - as of yet. Let's not forget the fact that Bioware are making ME2+3 so hopefully they'll have learned something during the development of ME 1.

Bioware games have from the start been about the story, to put you into a situation in which your character is the main character and you decide how to play the main protagonist in e.g. Jade Empire, the Baldur's Gate series, Kotor or Mass Effect. In BG1+2, no matter what you did, you were saving the world, too....

And Bioware did highly recommend 'the witcher'...

[Prime Junta]

IPlease if you could name evil acts she has done? If you can you will be the first.

(1) She magicked Odo into murdering his brother. (That's what the voodoo doll was for.)

(2) She sold poison to a girl who wanted to commit suicide.

Both of these count as pretty evil to me. Especially point (1) above, but also point (2).

I disagree, true evil is not possible in games other than the way they are depicted currently. How can you be true evil and survive in a town, first place no one would talk to you and if you kill everyone then you have no one to control, minuplate and subjugate to your selfish will.

That's my point exactly -- what you're talking about is not "true" evil -- it's unrealistic, non-believable, stupid, clichéd, moronic evil.

So once again provide some context or preferably a specfic example of an evil scenario, which you think devs should/could/need to use. :)

Oh, come on, Acleacius -- surely you can think of some stuff yourself. I can think of a half-dozen scenarios off the top of my head; starting from the one I described above. Just read a few books, watch a few movies, see a few plays and you'll get any amount of inspiration.

No, I won't write outlines here, because it'd be about a page per outline and I don't feel like doing the work just to prove a point.

[Prime Junta]

Playing devil's advocate here, so everything hinges on one choice between two options made in one conversation in The Witcher. How is that so believable?

There's nothing inherently unbelievable in binary choices, three choices, an infinity of choices, or even in no choices at all. The believability or lack thereof depends on what the choices are.

As in:

"You just saw a clearly hungry, slightly crazy-looking character grab a loaf of bread from a store and run off. What do you do?"

(a) Alert the shopkeeper
(b) Distract the shopkeeper so the poor sod gets away
(c) Attempt to tackle the thief
(d) Yell "Police!"
(e) Piss on the floor, punch the shopkeeper in the mouth, stomp on a passing kitten, go "MUHAHAHAHA!" and then kill everybody.

[Acleacius]

Actually, the choices you make in Hammer & Sickle
Damn that was a fun game, but frustrating at times.

Basically, they are using the same formula with rather superficial changes
Sadly I bet they feel there is no reason to change this, since they keep making money.


In other words, he's unquestionably evil, but for good or at least believable reasons.
This maybe true to some degree, but you still have a very boring and unrealistic RPG, unless you entertained by playing someone whom destroys, rapes and slaughters villagers. As I said before it's really impossible to do because either none will talk to you or you have to kill everyone. You may consider this high art game design however, I will bet your in the minority. Nor do I believe your example is "for good or at least believable reasons" for RPing. It would be like making a Vampire game with a character who's Humanity is about 20, they could never do anything but dominate or murder others. Like I said if you enjoy this, fine but don't think it's a good idea to encourage game developers they have to be much more responsible with budgets, than to appeal to the smallest minority of gamers. Diversity is great but making a game for 5% of gamers that like to play evil?

when the argument becomes "You are an idiot" instead of "This is the flaw in the game that ruins it for me."
That's true and wrong when it's done. :(
I have seen the opposite also, very often you have people trying to call oblivion an RPG, which in most cases it's not. Since if RP is what oblivion is then almost any game is a RPG, which would be very sad. I am not saying there are exceptions or specific definitions and maybe it's just me but I can't see past the "If I am RP, I should have some ability to affect the world/story".
Yet many younger gamers may never know what real RPG is since many of these Action games's PR departments intentionally lie to make sales.

[Acleacius]

(1) She magicked Odo into murdering his brother. (That's what the voodoo doll was for.)
Did you story have anything in it showing this or is this just your best guess/opinion, as I have tried playing that several times with different dialog options (i.e. the different English options long, short and final) and found nothing?

(2) She sold poison to a girl who wanted to commit suicide.
Once again did you get any story or dialog saying the girl told her why she was buying it?

Both of these count as pretty evil to me. Especially point (1) above, but also point (2).
I hope I am not missing something though at this point, afaik we are just dealing with imagined evidence, since I haven't seen any of this as in story proof.

No, I won't write outlines here, because it'd be about a page per outline and I don't feel like doing the work just to prove a point.
Ok, no problem but your incorrect at least about me, I sure the hell can't think of one and a book is different as is a movie, we are seeing depictions of characters not trying to RP one, afai can tell atm. :)

[Prime Junta]

This maybe true to some degree, but you still have a very boring and unrealistic RPG, unless you entertained by playing someone whom destroys, rapes and slaughters villagers.

By "unrealistic," are you saying that the Romans (or people like them, before and since) haven't actually done those sorts of things? If so, you're incredibly naive -- it's going on right now in many places in the world.

Second, my point appears to have whizzed right over your head. Specifically, in most games, there's precisely nothing to rape, murder, and arson beyond "because I'm eeeeevil, muhahahaha," whereas I'm looking for realistic, believable motivation that would allow me as the player to identify with the (evil) character I'm playing -- that being the whole point of role-playing.

In other words: evil people aren't evil because they're evil. They're evil for any number of reasons that make perfect sense to them: they were abused as kids, they're racists, they're patriots, they're loyal to a nasty organization and "just obey orders," their greed or ambition gets the better of their compassion, they're on a mission from God, they're out to save the world, they've suffered a horrible wrong and are out to get revenge, they feel lost and powerless and want to lash back, and so on. There's certainly no shortage of believable, understandable examples and models to pick from: the only reason RPG's are stuck in Skeletor-mode is... because they're stuck in Skeletor-mode. Or because people know no better.

As I said before it's really impossible to do because either none will talk to you or you have to kill everyone.

Empirically not true. Tactics like that *work* -- it will scare a large number of people into collaborating with you.

You may consider this high art game design however, I will bet your in the minority. Nor do I believe your example is "for good or at least believable reasons" for RPing.

So, do you believe that the evil choices in, say, Jade Empire, NWN, or KOTOR are "for good or at least believable reasons?" If so, I'd like to hear your explanation as to why these reasons are better or more believable than reasons that actually, in real life, motivate real, basically normal, basically good people to do horrible things.

It would be like making a Vampire game with a character who's Humanity is about 20, they could never do anything but dominate or murder others. Like I said if you enjoy this, fine but don't think it's a good idea to encourage game developers they have to be much more responsible with budgets, than to appeal to the smallest minority of gamers. Diversity is great but making a game for 5% of gamers that like to play evil?

Acleacius, you just re-stated my exact beef with games like NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, and even MotB: the evil on offer is precisely the mindless, unmotivated, pointless evil that only appeals to the 5% of players who genuinely enjoy evil for its own sake.

Oh, and one more thing that I failed to mention: I'm not even necessarily calling for *player choices* that are evil in this way. I'd be thrilled pink if the *antagonist* was evil in a believable way. Say, *you* were playing the part of an Egyptian villager suffering under the Roman yoke, and the boss you were fighting was the provincial governor I described earlier. Something like The Witcher, in fact -- it's one of the rare games where the end boss's motives *made sense* psychologically.

[Prime Junta]

Did you story have anything in it showing this or is this just your best guess/opinion, as I have tried playing that several times with different dialog options (i.e. the different English options long, short and final) and found nothing?

Yes, it was as good as explicitly stated in the big dialog scene before the Act I boss battle.

Once again did you get any story or dialog saying the girl told her why she was buying it?

Yes. You could talk to Abigail and get her to explain herself. She basically shrugged it off as "everyone makes their choices; I just sold her what she wanted to buy."


I hope I am not missing something though at this point, afaik we are just dealing with imagined evidence, since I haven't seen any of this as in story proof.

Yes, you do appear to have missed it.

The Witcher is a somewhat subtle game. It implies and suggests a great deal where other games would draw you a picture with a big caption on it. You have to pay attention to figure it out; it doesn't force itself down your throat.

Ok, no problem but your incorrect at least about me, I sure the hell can't think of one and a book is different as is a movie, we are seeing depictions of characters not trying to RP one, afai can tell atm. :)

OK, then. How about:

(1) Playing as one of the Skywalkers, only with the option to choose differently. Anakin fell for some pretty good reasons (made clearer in the books, btw, than the st00pid Episodes 1-3). Luke could have fallen for equally good reasons, e.g. when tempted by the Emperor. What would have happened then?

(2) Playing as Cheradenine Zakalwe from Iain M. Banks's Use of Weapons. How far will you go in order to win your war? As far as Cheradenine, who once did something so horrible it plagued his nightmares for the rest of his life?

(3) Playing as Túrin Turambar from Tolkien's Narn i Hîn Húrin.

(4) Playing as a knight of the First Crusade under Raymond of Toulouse.

(5) Playing as a samurai of the Shogun period, caught between duty, conscience, and love.

(6) Playing as an aspiring priest of Mictlantecuchtli in pre-Columbian Mexico.

[Acleacius]

By "unrealistic," are you saying that the Romans (or people like them, before and since) haven't actually done those sorts of things? If so, you're incredibly naive
No, I simply mean they not understandable acts of evil at the time, as they had no way really of knowing they were being brainwashed nor did they refer to it as murder or rape, actually irrc they consider it a holy mission. Committing evil acts as a RP or in RL even would require you knowing they are evil acts which you are perpetrating. While say the leaders might certainly be, but your example was of your RP character I referred to, hell it's even possible some of the leaders are duped into doing evil things they think or holy. Anyone remember the original names for the war in Irag? Crusade and Infinite Justice they sort of sound holy don't they, wonder why those didn't go over to well.
Second, my point appears to have whizzed right over your head. Specifically, in most games, there's precisely nothing to rape, murder, and arson beyond "because I'm eeeeevil, muhahahaha,"
Maybe it did, all I saying is even if those were available it still wouldn't work as a game, even if you were able to do things in P&P game I can't see going anywhere, so if that what you mean, then I guess it did whizzed pasted me.

In other words: evil people aren't evil because they're evil. They're evil for any number of reasons that make perfect sense to them: they were abused as kids
I agree and that's very well said and while true it's not game material, book or movie sure. :)

Empirically not true. Tactics like that *work* -- it will scare a large number of people into collaborating with you.
I empirically, disagree it works only as an NPC at least at the moment and the idea as I have mentioned before that you seem to think a developer should spend a vast amount of remorses it would take while only satisfying maybe 5% of the gaming community seems far fetched atm. Who knows though with the corporatists running the show and feeding off the military complex as General Ike warned, that 5% could boom and people could treat rampant violence against innocent men, women and childern as a sporting event. Oh wait Shock and Awe war coverage, hell you maybe in luck there could be a game in the works, NOW! ;)

I'd be thrilled pink if the *antagonist* was evil in a believable way
Damn that's a good idea. :)

Yes, it was as good as explicitly stated in the big dialog scene before the Act I boss battle.
Like I said I never got that, only Odo falsely trying to blame her, which is exactly what he was doing, blaming someone else for his own act, he even states in his own words "he hated warriors" unless your not giving him credit for anything he says and beleive everything is something she is making him do and say. I feel very comfortable seeing him as a phony if you wish to believe she did this much less had the ability to, that fine but it very far from certain.
A perfect example of this is, if she was really using the doll for this purpose why is she still praying at the doll, maybe it's a representation of one of her demi-gods, Geralt only comments it looked similar.
Additionally why did she have a motive to do this to Odo, just cause?
Lol, all I can say is I hope if you ever get called to jury duty and someones life is on the line your a little more particular about evidence of putting someone to death. :p
Remember it wasn't about her life OR all the others, it was only was there evidence to kill her, they chose to attack Geralt.
Yes. You could talk to Abigail and get her to explain herself. She basically shrugged it off as "everyone makes their choices; I just sold her what she wanted to buy."
Ok, I will recheck, I sure didn't get that dialog. :)

Yes, you do appear to have missed it.
Hehe, well even if Abby did sell it knowing, that she was going to kill herself, it would be another very contrived quest plot as clearly Abby's character was not that way, she Clearly would have enlisted her help and had an ally to repay the bastards that were devastating the women in the village, at least from what little I understand about women. ;)
I really like The Witcher but to choose to ignore several places where they intentionally contrive situations to prevent a good or positive outcome would be disingenuous, at least for me.
The Witcher is a somewhat subtle game.
Subtle is not how I would choose to describe it, actually it's pretty in your face about a lot of things, imo, They seemed to have felt their design choice of less evils was too absolute to break, so when it wasn't possible padding was added, which I personally regret they felt they had to stick to this impossible standard and weakened parts of the game for it.

I'll have to get the last one later or in the next post.

[Prime Junta]

No, I simply mean they not understandable acts of evil at the time, as they had no way really of knowing they were being brainwashed nor did they refer to it as murder or rape, actually irrc they consider it a holy mission. Committing evil acts as a RP or in RL even would require you knowing they are evil acts which you are perpetrating.

By that definition, evil would be as good as non-existent. I'm sure the guy operating the gas chamber at Auschwitz-Birkenau had it all clear in his head that gassing Jews, gays, Communists, and Romany doesn't count as murder... even if he might woken up screaming in the night on occasion (chalk that up to weakness of character).

The whole point of the kind of evil I'm after in games is that it is understandable and motivated. People are really good at rationalizing things to themselves, whether it's genocide or just a little white lie. That does not make the act any less evil -- it just means that whoever did it succeeded at lying to himself about it.

I empirically, disagree it works only as an NPC at least at the moment and the idea as I have mentioned before that you seem to think a developer should spend a vast amount of remorses it would take while only satisfying maybe 5% of the gaming community seems far fetched atm.

No, Acleacius.

I really don't seem to be getting through to you, am I?

What I'm asking is that the developers take the resources they now put into writing boring, clichéd, stupid, strangle-passing-kittens-muhahaha evil, and write believable, psychologically motivated, understandable evil instead.

I don't want more evil. I want better evil.

[Thaurin]

Seriously, you must be joking, right?
Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, Hate Crimes, Race Crimes, Gender Crimes, hopefully your joking. :)

Nope, I agree with skavenhorde. All these... acts are equally performed from a certain perspective. Your and most of society's perspective of it is that they are vile, wrong and evil. However, there is no universal truth that they are inherently evil. These acts just are what they are. Good and evil are labels given to them by man.

A good example of this to me is slavery. Most people nowadays would say slavery is evil. However, a long time ago (and not so long ago) it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves and was even regulated by law. These people did not think it was evil. Only today people would call it so, and even go as far as to call the ancient society that practiced slavery evil.

I like this as an argument in discussions with Christians, as rules for the handling of slaves came directly from God, according to the bible. If this isn't proof to them that there is no such thing as absolute truth, then I don't know what is.

[Thaurin]

I haven't played Mass Effect yet, but I would really have liked if you, as Shepard, could take sides in the conflict. The Renegade options seems to be 'the jack bauer in space' option the two Bioware doctors (ray&greg) talked about earlier. There's no way to side with Saren, as I understand it in Mass Effect? - as of yet.

Oh, hell yeah. That would be fantastic. I haven't finished the game yet, but I'm sure it's not possible. However, Saren is an interesting character. I guess it's probably because of the prequel book Revelation that I read. He's a bit cliched to be sure, but the cold, mechanical efficiency with which he works is contagious, even though it looks like he's only doing what he's doing because he wants power. Siding with this "evil" side would be very interesting.

[Thaurin]

I have seen the opposite also, very often you have people trying to call oblivion an RPG, which in most cases it's not. [...] ...many of these Action games's PR departments intentionally lie to make sales.

Lie? No, Oblivion actually is an RPG. This is exactly the elitism that was spoken about. Oblivion: doing quests? check. Leveling up a character? check. Looting? check. Exploration? check? Dialogue? check. Whether these elements have been executed to your satisfaction is an entirely different matter.

This boils down to whether it's useful to think in genres, anyway. When is something a RPG? Does it matter? Even within what you'd call "true RPG's" the differences can be so vast that you'd love one game on the one hand and despise another on the other (with scores of people seeing it the other way round).

"Affecting the world/story" or having "depth" to gameplay isn't what defines a role-playing game, to me anyway. Maybe that's because, you know, sometimes I just want to play an RPG where I don't affect the world/story or have "deep" gameplay.

[Dusk]

I've got an impression that the majority of Bioware game players don't read fictions outside of fantasy and Sci-Fi genres. For, otherwise, it cannot be so difficult to see Bioware story-telling scheme lacks many aspects compared with other materials for story-telling.

Fantasy world settings tend to lack the aspect of convincing economy and politics as well as characters inside them. The Witcher tackled with this tendency and seems to be widely accepted as a success in this respect. I wonder if this is revolutionary as the designers claim but I think it managed to bring back a part of people who feel they are too old to play RPGs. However, I think that there are still many more rooms where other means of story-telling will find their places to enrich role-playing experience in CRPGs.


Sadly I bet they feel there is no reason to change this, since they keep making money.
I wonder if game industry is being assimilated by an economic system which reminds me of Hollywood movie industry. After seeking for immediate profits and forgetting about maturing the content,Hollywood is rather staggering. At least, the part of game industry may be following a more or less similar path.

[fatBastard()]

Oh, hell yeah. That would be fantastic. I haven't finished the game yet, but I'm sure it's not possible. However, Saren is an interesting character. I guess it's probably because of the prequel book Revelation that I read. He's a bit cliched to be sure, but the cold, mechanical efficiency with which he works is contagious, even though it looks like he's only doing what he's doing because he wants power. Siding with this "evil" side would be very interesting.

I'll try not to spoil anything, but once you play through the game you'll find out why joining Saren is not an option.

However, speaking of motivated evil: Saren's reasons for doing what he does is actually pretty darn believable. Misguided? Absolutely, but nevertheless very believable.

[Thaurin]

What some people seem to forget is that these games make money because a lot of people like them and are willing to spend their money on them. It's all fine that you have distinguished tastes and crave for more intelligent fare, but the reason that fantasy and sci-fi novels are popular is that they entertain many people.

There is nothing wrong with at one point deciding that you've had enough of that and want to spend your time more thoughtfully on entertainment that has a little more depth to it. It is equally fine to decide not to, or to do both.

Hollywood has never stopped producing good movies. They have produced both horrible and unnecessary movies, without doubt. I'm just glad that not everything is "art." I'd go starking mad in short amounts of time, most likely.

I'll try not to spoil anything, but once you play through the game you'll find out why joining Saren is not an option.

However, speaking of motivated evil: Saren's reasons for doing what he does is actually pretty darn believable. Misguided? Absolutely, but nevertheless very believable.

Oh, more detail to the story! Well, I did read so many reviews praising the writing (regardless of whether it is "art" :rolleyes: or not), but I just haven't progressed far enough into the game to reveal much of the story yet (even though my save game says 11 hours). Lots of stuff to look forward to. :) Like more scenes with Saren in it-- he's acted and animated so awesomely.

[BillSeurer]

There's no way to side with Saren, as I understand it in Mass Effect? - as of yet.

Given the story that would be rediculous.

Saren is the pawn of a race (and no, not the Geth) that is trying to destroy all the existing intelligent races in the galaxy. The story is you trying to stop this.

[Benedict]

By that definition, evil would be as good as non-existent. I'm sure the guy operating the gas chamber at Auschwitz-Birkenau had it all clear in his head that gassing Jews, gays, Communists, and Romany doesn't count as murder... even if he might woken up screaming in the night on occasion (chalk that up to weakness of character).

The whole point of the kind of evil I'm after in games is that it is understandable and motivated. People are really good at rationalizing things to themselves, whether it's genocide or just a little white lie. That does not make the act any less evil -- it just means that whoever did it succeeded at lying to himself about it.
What I'm asking is that the developers take the resources they now put into writing boring, clichéd, stupid, strangle-passing-kittens-muhahaha evil, and write believable, psychologically motivated, understandable evil instead.

I don't want more evil. I want better evil.

An interesting thread, not sure where to jump in but I'll join here I think.

It's the rationalising that's the key, the greatest evil in real life is generally done by people who have convinced themselves that they're doing good. Generally by any moral system people recognise they don't do evil, they don't often say "I know this is horrific but I'm doing it anyway because I'm pure evil!". They do it either because they've developed a moral system where it's not evil or because they've so detached themselves from the impact of their actions that they just don't recognise what it is that they're doing. Sounds like the witcher has picked good subject matter for that by taking racial tensions which are generally founded on inability to see the other race as being as "real" as you are.

Although I don't think that the cliched kitten strangling evil is necessarily always a bad thing if used well. It's fantasy, there's always scope for some absolute evil (against some absolute moral frame of reference), but I'd say it needs someone who's not entirely bad brought down by it, seduced by power then forced into atrocity yet unable always to stop it.

You mentioned earlier the almost visceral dislike you felt when trying to choose some of the evil options, I'd like to see a game that really used that to full effect. Not having the same path then in every conversation offering you a "do you eat this baby" type blindingly obvious evil choice, but offering you earlier on a few choices that seemed relatively innocent even if a bit wrong then later on having the evil acts occur whether you want them or not (or having events unfold so that you don't have much option, or at least have to severely weaken yourself to get out of them). That way you get the visceral reaction but your character doesn't feel like an unconvincing monster you can't empathise with, he finds it as repugnant as you do but you both have no choice.

[PatrickWeekes]

One assumption many people here are making is that people play CRPGs for realism.

Some do, certainly, but personally, I can get shades of gray with no clear moral choices in real life. When I play a video game, I want to be a good guy who whacks bad guys.

Realism is certainly one valid playstyle, but it's not the only one.

[magerette]

...
It's the rationalising that's the key, the greatest evil in real life is generally done by people who have convinced themselves that they're doing good. Generally by any moral system people recognise they don't do evil, they don't often say "I know this is horrific but I'm doing it anyway because I'm pure evil!". They do it either because they've developed a moral system where it's not evil or because they've so detached themselves from the impact of their actions that they just don't recognise what it is that they're doing. Sounds like the witcher has picked good subject matter for that by taking racial tensions which are generally founded on inability to see the other race as being as "real" as you are.

Although I don't think that the cliched kitten strangling evil is necessarily always a bad thing if used well. It's fantasy, there's always scope for some absolute evil (against some absolute moral frame of reference), but I'd say it needs someone who's not entirely bad brought down by it, seduced by power then forced into atrocity yet unable always to stop it.

Very good analysis. The scariest evil is in the cumulative, petty, almost ignorable flow of little choices that people make without actually realizing them. In RL, evil actually often does come from the wholly self-centric view that many games imperfectly display as mere arrogance. (I'm not a big Stephen King fan, but he has a gift for portraying this takeover in normal people very well, especially in books like Tommyknockers and Needful Things. )Where games fail is in not following this path to the inevitable conclusion very well. Evil always progress and takes over those who welcome it, and in games, it remains static and shallow.


One assumption many people here are making is that people play CRPGs for realism.

Some do, certainly, but personally, I can get shades of gray with no clear moral choices in real life. When I play a video game, I want to be a good guy who whacks bad guys.

Realism is certainly one valid playstyle, but it's not the only one.

I think that viewpoint really expresses the action rpg genre, Patrick. Nothing wrong with that--I play and enjoy that genre when it's well done, and even when it isn't, sometimes, but without story, writing, identification, dialogue and meaningful choices(shades of grey), you have something that, serious or not, isn't exactly a crpg the way it's generally defined--which god forbid we even get into. :)

[Benedict]

Even on a really basic level I think games miss some obvious evil routes. I think we've all experimented with killing a shopkeeper only to find that the items on him are crap compared to the items to buy, at the least I'd expect there to be some seriously cool items that one can only pick up by being a complete arse.

[PatrickWeekes]

I think that viewpoint really expresses the action rpg genre, Patrick. Nothing wrong with that--I play and enjoy that genre when it's well done, and even when it isn't, sometimes, but without story, writing, identification, dialogue and meaningful choices(shades of grey), you have something that, serious or not, isn't exactly a crpg the way it's generally defined--which god forbid we even get into. :)

No, no, let's. Explain to me what a CRPG is. I enjoy hearing how our most recent game isn't one from people who haven't played said game.

You're free to like or dislike any flavor of ice cream, but you don't get to frame the debate by saying that anything that doesn't have chocolate chips isn't really ice cream.

[aries100]

Let me just clarify things a bit then ;) When I said that I would have liked to see a option to take sides in the conflict, I used joining forces with Saren as an example.
Maybe our Spectre agentcould also have met a member of the opposing forces and they could have convinced him to take sides - with the geth.

I'm just discussing options here, you see, inspired by this thread comments about The Witcher's, Geralt's, ability to take sides, in the game. I mean, there must be a reason that Bioware highly recommends The Witcher other than the developer, CD Project, licensed their Aurora engine...

[Prime Junta]

Even on a really basic level I think games miss some obvious evil routes. I think we've all experimented with killing a shopkeeper only to find that the items on him are crap compared to the items to buy, at the least I'd expect there to be some seriously cool items that one can only pick up by being a complete arse.

I think the main reason for evil paths in games is to provide a genuine element of moral choice. Without Hell, Heaven would have no meaning; that sort of thing.

[Benedict]

I think the main reason for evil paths in games is to provide a genuine element of moral choice. Without Hell, Heaven would have no meaning; that sort of thing.

I'd assumed it was because they thought there was a marketing advantage in suggesting two different paths, cynic that I am.

[magerette]

No, no, let's. Explain to me what a CRPG is. I enjoy hearing how our most recent game isn't one from people who haven't played said game.

You're free to like or dislike any flavor of ice cream, but you don't get to frame the debate by saying that anything that doesn't have chocolate chips isn't really ice cream.

I wasn't talking about Mass Effect and didn't know you were, Patrick. I was responding to the statement " I just want to be a good guy that whacks a bad guy" which to me is the arpg/fps approach. Thought we were discussing evil and shades of grey and video game experiences in general. Sorry if I seemed to be targeting your game... You're right, though, it's very unlikely I'll play this one since I don't own an XBox. :)

[Thaurin]

I don't believe anyone can believably argue that Mass Effect isn't a role-playing game. At least, not without discarding many other games that are widely considered to be cornerstones of the genre. Sure, Mass Effect plays out in a more action-oriented style, but underneath I don't see much difference with other Bioware games like the Baldur's Gate series. Those games may have been a bit more laid back with the extensive text descriptions and auto-pause function, but I don't believe we should define role-playing games by the amount of side-quests, the measure in which you can influence a story (as long as you can in some way) or its depiction of "good" and "evil."

Like I said, genres can be so useless. You may claim that you like role-playing games and totally hate one RPG and love the other. Even role-playing games can have fundamental differences in their design.

[mactbone]

Mass Effect = Space Opera

By including the standard tropes of a Space Opera it is doing exactly what it set out to do. That you wanted more is the product of your own expectations.

It is a pretty good game and has some good bits to it, it is not the game to end all games, but it's a Bioware game with all that entails.

I know classifying genres is fruitless and only effective for the person making the distinctions but I see the Bioware games as a specific brand of RPG that is mostly adventure, with small combat bits and a few choices thrown in. It's got a fairly interesting story and it's well made which is a lot more than can be said for a lot of games I've played.

I do find it amusing that a lot of people here are implying that Bioware should change their style - people buy Bioware because of that style, just like people go to any other brand expecting a certain thing.

As to the whole evil, etc. Without knowing any specifics (other than assuming you're talking about Mass Effect and maybe some Bioware games) it sounds like the people that complain that none of the music is good anymore or who rail against "those basketball thugs." There are certainly a lot of games that just set up evil, grrr. I don't see why that's so bad when most games aren't stories about that person, why they're evil, etc. That said, Mass Effect has fairly interesting "evil" characters with motivations and influences.

I think that viewpoint really expresses the action rpg genre, Patrick. Nothing wrong with that--I play and enjoy that genre when it's well done, and even when it isn't, sometimes, but without story, writing, identification, dialogue and meaningful choices(shades of grey), you have something that, serious or not, isn't exactly a crpg the way it's generally defined--which god forbid we even get into.

This doesn't make sense to me. The antagonist's evilness or motivations should have nothing to do with the genre.

[mactbone]

Let me just clarify things a bit then ;) When I said that I would have liked to see a option to take sides in the conflict, I used joining forces with Saren as an example.
Maybe our Spectre agentcould also have met a member of the opposing forces and they could have convinced him to take sides - with the geth.

I'm just discussing options here, you see, inspired by this thread comments about The Witcher's, Geralt's, ability to take sides, in the game. I mean, there must be a reason that Bioware highly recommends The Witcher other than the developer, CD Project, licensed their Aurora engine...

If they would've let you take sides with the Geth - but you were transformed into a machine in a cut scene and the game ended, would that have been sufficient? Would it have been OK if the difference between joining different sides is who you talked to at the end of the game?

I just have this feeling that what you're asking for is another 10 hours of completely different content if you chose to side with a different group. That seems like a lot to ask for a game - especially one which has always been designed as a trilogy.

[BillSeurer]

Even on a really basic level I think games miss some obvious evil routes. I think we've all experimented with killing a shopkeeper only to find that the items on him are crap compared to the items to buy, at the least I'd expect there to be some seriously cool items that one can only pick up by being a complete arse.

Games don't handle that situation because it is, frankly, stupid.

I remember one guy whining that a game (Fallout perhaps?) was broken because he had killed everyone he met and "the plot wasn't advancing". Yeah, it was the first time he had played an RPG and he didn't realize you were supposed to talk to people and not just kill everything that moved.

[Squeek]

You're free to like or dislike any flavor of ice cream, but you don't get to frame the debate by saying that anything that doesn't have chocolate chips isn't really ice cream.What a perfect analogy (Careful with that. You might hurt somebody). I'm fairly shocked to find a game developer talk about realism that way. Aren't you guys firmly committed to realistic simulation these days?

I say that because I keep seeing everything in more and more detail with every new game I play. From over here that seems like realism. But at the same time, I keep experiencing less and less depth. That seems like...well, less -- not only less realistic, but often less enjoyable.

Shouldn't you guys be trying to make the games more interesting and fun instead of making them more visually detailed? Which realism don't you like? I'd vote for more of the good stuff and less of the unnecessary stuff, more narrative and less graphic detail.

[magerette]

This doesn't make sense to me. The antagonist's evilness or motivations should have nothing to do with the genre.

Well, it wouldn't make sense, since I was talking about the protagonist. And I'm sorry that my remarks were perceived as a slam on Mass Effect. I don't slam games I haven't played. Obviously Bioware has a large and supportive fanbase because they please those fans with how they make games--and I hope I know better than to get into genre definition and the "My crpg is better bigger and has more choices than your crpg" debate. :)

Mass Effect is a game that's selling at high volumes, has superlative reviews, and is quite obviously going to be up for GotY awards and so forth. Is it really so threatening for me to say that " a good guy whacking a bad guy" is not the sum total of what one expects from an RPG? AFA I know, Mass Effect HAS all the other things I mentioned--story, dialogue, etc. I wasn't even talking about Mass Effect, but if the shoe fits wear it. If it doesn't, then what's the big deal?

[BillSeurer]

If they would've let you take sides with the Geth - but you were transformed into a machine in a cut scene and the game ended, would that have been sufficient?

Kind of like if you join the supermutants in Fallout (or maybe Fallout 2, I forget).

Would it have been OK if the difference between joining different sides is who you talked to at the end of the game?

The whole end sequence, probably the last hour, would have had to be different.

I just have this feeling that what you're asking for is another 10 hours of completely different content if you chose to side with a different group. That seems like a lot to ask for a game - especially one which has always been designed as a trilogy.

The usual way of handling this is to just pick one ending and use that as the setup for the later game(s). Of course that sucks if yours isn't the one that they picked. I remember starting up Baldur's Gate 2 and wondering why Jaheira (sp?) was around at all and why I gave a r*ts *ss about Imoen when Jaheira had died early on when I played BG 1 and I had dropped Imoen at some point and forgotten about her.

[Dusk]

...Really, how many books/films are about good and evil? I think the more important factor is if we can sympathize or antipathize with the characters presented in them.

[Thaurin]

Shouldn't you guys be trying to make the games more interesting and fun instead of making them more visually detailed? Which realism don't you like? I'd vote for more of the good stuff and less of the unnecessary stuff, more narrative and less graphic detail.

How about both? While modern game development costs a lot more resources than it used to be, I'm not convinced that this takes away from the other parts of the game. I always see people complain about this when a game looks good. Why do you think that a game with good visuals has to be less deep? Maybe that's your experience, but from my own, I'm not seeing it.

[skavenhorde]

Gaming boards everywhere are full of elitists, sometimes psychopathically so it seems. :) There's definitely an ego factor involved, and often a corresponding cliquism, but buried in the sludge of personal preferences there is also the desire for excellence.


Hey, I'm no pshycho :) really I'm not. Sorry if I got a little carried away in my examples there but the point I was trying to make (through tons of examples) is that the whole good vs evil thing is all about perception. Just look at the political system for a minute and see that dems see good ways of doing things vs the Rep see good ways of doing things.

The Witcher is the first game that I've played that has taken this into account. That is what The Witcher is all about "you the player" choose your actions on what you perceive to be good or evil. When I roleplay a game I "pretend" what I would do in real life when making choices like the witcher does. So sorry for bringing real life into a game but when talking about good vs evil you sorta have to ask yourself what the heck is good and evil and I came to the conclusion that it is how you percieve it to be.

[Thaurin]

When I roleplay a game I "pretend" what I would do in real life when making choices like the witcher does.

Hey, this is another thing I've noticed. Personally, I think it's rather boring to pretend that the protagonist's choices are like your own. It's much more enjoyable to just go all out and pretend I'm a psychopathic lunatic that has mood swings, or something. :) So I see some people with the same arguments that play RPG's in similar ways and view the themes they encounter from their personal, real-life perspective.

[Squeek]

Why do you think that a game with good visuals has to be less deep? Maybe that's your experience, but from my own, I'm not seeing it.Oh, brother. I'll stick with my point of view.

[cuthbert]

Lie? No, Oblivion actually is an RPG. This is exactly the elitism that was spoken about. Oblivion: doing quests? check. Leveling up a character? check. Looting? check. Exploration? check? Dialogue? check. Whether these elements have been executed to your satisfaction is an entirely different matter.


Dude you just described the diablo series and warcraft 3.

[Thaurin]

Dude you just described the diablo series and warcraft 3.

Fair enough. Then I would call hack 'n slash a sub-genre of RPG. Warcraft 3 was a cross-over title: RTS with RPG elements.

[skavenhorde]

Hey, this is another thing I've noticed. Personally, I think it's rather boring to pretend that the protagonist's choices are like your own. It's much more enjoyable to just go all out and pretend I'm a psychopathic lunatic that has mood swings, or something. :) So I see some people with the same arguments that play RPG's in similar ways and view the themes they encounter from their personal, real-life perspective.

I know it may be more boring but I normally don't do the "evil" quests. I've tried playing arcanum or KOTOR as an "evil" character but it just gets boring after awhile. It is so predictable, every quest choice is either ok be a good and helping person or be a jerk and if I'm going to follow a story to the end, I want to be helping create a better world, not destroy it.

Jade Empire was the only game (other than Witcher) that brought rational thought into why your character would want to be an arrogant jerk. The way of the closed fist may of been "evil" but it also brought with it a reason to why it was "evil" instead of the usual "well your evil so be as selfish and stupid as you want to be."

[Acleacius]

OK, then. How about:
Look, if it can be done fine, I just don't see, however if I had to give my opinion I would say those in your list to accomplish a good playable evil would be much better suited to the Strategy genre.

By that definition, evil would be as good as non-existent
Not really as I mentioned true evil is committed as a known or intent of if your in a religious cult, gas chamber guard or 50.9% of the population here in the US with your leaders in control of almost all the information you receive and if you listen to anything which they don't support you are the enemy, you as the controlled are acting not of freewill. Same as a solider in the battlefield, he is cut off from most all forms of communication, except his orders now due to human instint he may question an order of destroying a village, yet if he is told (and knows no better att) if he unit doesn't act immediately the war is lost (or some such) he isn't committing an actual evil act if it's not known. Same as the US citizens whom believed Iraq had something to do with 911, when every bit of real evidence pointed against this, doesn't make the actual citizens wrong any more than the German citizens during WW2, it was the leaders committing the actual acts, by Ordering Known Evil Acts. It's easy sit back and second guess things when you don't have all the circumstances and say that was an evil act in and of itself but is it an evil act to judge these situations without first knowing the circumstances, just to find a scapegoat or to drive bloodlust and enrage your citizens? Seems so, for the most part.

I don't want more evil. I want better evil.
Well I think I do understand what your saying and asking for, yet I am disagreeing it can be done, in the RPG format, well to be more accuarte nothing I have seen yet nor do I see how it's possible, atm. As I mentioned above, I do see it possible as a sort of Strategy game.

Your and most of society's perspective of it is that they are vile, wrong and evil. However, there is no universal truth that they are inherently evil.
Well you got me there, I am pretty shocked you seem to deny human nature and have no regard for Humanity, since that's not possibly something known to be inherent I can only guess you learned this somewhere school, parents, government or maybe religion, to bad really.

However, a long time ago (and not so long ago) it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves and was even regulated by law.
Your joking I hope, if not you seriously need something, since I don't know you I couldn't say but you really need to talk to more people. :)
If you want to test yourself on this, just to make sure your right, ask yourself this question what are you basing this on?
Are you next going to say it's ok to burn women at the stake, if they refuse your selfish sexual advances and say it's ok in some religions?
I really hope you reconsider your position. :)

Oblivion actually is an RPG. This is exactly the elitism ...........check? Dialogue? check.
Lol, if you say so, of course you would be wrong. :) Either that or you have a very low expectation of an RPG or maybe your using some new PR bullshit definition?
RPG almost by definition (RP or P&P) is having an effect on the world, without choices you playing an Action game, even if (like most oblivion quest) you have quests it just standard quest that could be from Doom go get the Green Key to Open the Green door. There is no real consequence and certainly no meaningful dialog, hell the damn voice actors change in mid dialog. The only slight real case you might have is the character generation, yet it doesn't matter which you choose they all end up maxed out the same if you put even the slightest effort into it. oblivion is much closer to diablo than an RPG but you might be of the oppinion diablo is an RPG *snicker*.
See that's a big problem with this bullshit campaign m$ is doing now hell they don't give a shit what most of us whom have been playing games 10+ years think, they are trying to program younger games blurring the lines.
If you think about it, mostly an attempt to do the very least possible and still be able to pretend it's an RPG, hell look at your list got stats, dialog (damn I love that one, oh yeah oblivion the king of great dialogs :p ) sure they it makes them an RPG. :p

sometimes I just want to play an RPG where I don't affect the world/story or have "deep" gameplay.
Lol, right you want to play an action game, called an RPG. ;)

Damn this topic grew two pages in a couple of hours.

[Acleacius]

I wonder if game industry is being assimilated by an economic system which reminds me of Hollywood movie industry.
Sadly, I think your on to something there.

However, speaking of motivated evil: Saren's reasons for doing what he does is actually pretty darn believable. Misguided? Absolutely, but nevertheless very believable.
Nice to have good villains, I bet Prime Junta is pissed he can't play as Saren. ;p

I know this is horrific but I'm doing it anyway because I'm pure evil!".
Exactly, this is way and how great villians are made in games and movies, yet seems nigh impossible to play it in a RPG, personally I find it much more rewarding to fight against evil, so I don't feel I am missing anything. :)

can get shades of gray with no clear moral choices in real life. When I play a video game, I want to be a good guy who whacks bad guys.
Oh, yeah that's what I talkin bout! Chicks dig guys, who kick evil butt, fact!! ;)

I think that viewpoint really expresses the action rpg genre I really disagree, at least in my experience and even polls here on the Watch most people at least some shade of good and most are turned off by evil.

Without Hell, Heaven would have no meaning; that sort of thing.
Not, true. They certainly not part of Human Nature, we could be born, live and die and never know about them. One constant in religions I have notice is the Instructions always come after the fact, never born with which is why it always changes.

Jaheira had died early on when I played BG 1 and I had dropped Imoen at some point and forgotten about her
Dude, just cause she was lying there flopping around in a pool of blood don't mean shes dead, chicks can just pop right back up, scares the crap out me. :)

It's much more enjoyable to just go all out and pretend I'm a psychopathic lunatic that has mood swings, or something.
Huh, uh just keep telling yourself that. :p

[Thaurin]

Well you got me there, I am pretty shocked you seem to deny human nature and have no regard for Humanity, since that's not possibly something known to be inherent I can only guess you learned this somewhere school, parents, government or maybe religion, to bad really.

Actually, it is you who has learned to think in a certain way, as have I, as has everyone. There is only your perspective of reality. Reality itself has no moral system. In fact, in a way, nature is the truest form of reality and we have deviated greatly from its ways.

Your joking I hope, if not you seriously need something, since I don't know you I couldn't say but you really need to talk to more people. :)
If you want to test yourself on this, just to make sure your right, ask yourself this question what are you basing this on?

I'm basing this on history. Like I said, there really is no denying that whole civilizations consider things differently than ours does. Even today, we vastly differ in perspectives. Do you claim to be superior in your moral views? Of course you do, or you wouldn't have them. Well, so do I. Who's right?

Are you next going to say it's ok to burn women at the stake, if they refuse your selfish sexual advances and say it's ok in some religions?
I really hope you reconsider your position. :)

I didn't say anything. I simply stated historic fact.

Lol, if you say so, of course you would be wrong. :) Either that or you have a very low expectation of an RPG or maybe your using some new PR bullshit definition?

You just hang on to your limited and narrow-minded views of what a good game is and how consoles will never be more than a kid's toy. Read the posts on elitism in this thread. You are a perfect example of this.

I know you will just mock me when I say it, but I did like the dialogue and quests in Oblivion. Amazing, isn't it? Different opinions?

Lol, right you want to play an action game, called an RPG. ;)

Right, and of course you wouldn't call the Final Fantasies RPG's. That's just the way you are. :rolleyes: Who cares what they're called anyway? Do you want a bumper sticker that says: "I ONLY LIKE *REAL* cRPG'S, SO THERE!" or something?

[BillSeurer]

A good example of this to me is slavery. Most people nowadays would say slavery is evil. However, a long time ago (and not so long ago) it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves and was even regulated by law. These people did not think it was evil.

Your joking I hope, if not you seriously need something, since I don't know you I couldn't say but you really need to talk to more people. :)
If you want to test yourself on this, just to make sure your right, ask yourself this question what are you basing this on?

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "

Article I, section 2, original US constitution. "... all other Persons" were the slaves.

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Article IV, section 2, original US constitution. "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State..." were the slaves.

So, were the framers of the US Constitution evil men?

[Thaurin]

I'm afraid no answer willl ever be forthcoming. I shouldn't care, but I take issue with ignorant arrogance.

[Prime Junta]

Cognitive dissonance is fun to watch. Not so fun to experience.

Did you know George Washington inherited 10 slaves, but owned 316 at the time of his death?