The cost of doing good in games
View Single Post
April 19th, 2013, 02:09
For gaming purposes, I think I would have the "good" route be putting others' needs over your own while the "evil" route would do the opposite. If a dragon was coming to destroy a town, the person making consistent "evil" choices would be powerful enough to stop the dragon from even getting to the town but the player will have taken a pretty bad toll on the town himself. The consistent "good" choices would lead to a weak player but the town would be strong enough to fight off the dragon without the player's help at all.
If I could get it in, I might even pop in a "true good" result where the player mostly does good but pulls a few of the evil choices. The result being that the player can't stop the dragon but can weaken it enough that the town can blow the dragon out of the sky with almost no damage. That would end up being the route that results in the least death & destruction to all involved.
And maybe even a "true evil" result - the player fakes the town out and actually joins the dragon in destroying the town. (The dragon goes home with all the gold, the player goes home with all the other coinage. It's not like the dragon is going to be able to spend the money anywhere.
I agree that most current games don't make the choice a very tough one. Bioware's games often allow you to let the quest giver keep the reward but the cash for those rewards typically are dwarfed by the loot from the monsters. I don't think most gamers will like it much if their role playing choices end up gimping them. They'll be on the forums in an instant, blaming the developers for giving them a choice that isn't going to work out.
I smell a… wumpus!?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Zloth
Find More Posts by Zloth