Tyranny - Is being evil in RPGs fun?

[Dasale]

I would like to think people aren't evil to begin with - just get worn out by differences. I don't know, I just don't feel comfortable playing evil characters.. I would rather be a goody two shows, especially in games - maybe because you get compensated at least somewhat in the game, I suppose.

I believes he explained in a later post, "Since real human beings aren't evil" would mean more "Since real human beings aren't purely evil, it's more complex than that".

It's the point that led to greed, you are evil for a good reason for your point of view.

For example the paladin bashing head of the villain that smiled perversely at the lady. From paladin point of view he was good, from villain point of view it's unproportionate and then evil.

The paladin had his good reason to do what the villain see as evil.

 

[purpleblob]

I believes he explained in a later post, "Since real human beings aren't evil" would mean more "Since real human beings aren't purely evil, it's more complex than that".

It's the point that led to greed, you are evil for a good reason for your point of view.

For example the paladin bashing head of the villain that smiled perversely at the lady. From paladin point of view he was good, from villain point of view it's unproportionate and then evil.

The paladin had his good reason to do what the villain see as evil.

I went back and re-read DArt's post. Yes, ofcourse the concept is more complex, this whole being an evil character.

Call me a simpleton but I like games where good/evil actions are obvious because I always like choosing the "good" option - yes, the one that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. This is why I wasn't interested in Tyranny from the beginning. I know some people love this whole debate over "grey" actions but I'm not one of them - I go through this in real life and it stresses me. Gaming is sort of an escape from reality for me, I always want to be the good hero saving the world

While I am enjoying TW3, sometimes even that makes me uncomfortable with its "greyness".

Spoiler

I didn't want to bow to the Emperor but then realised that would cause some repercussion to the poor chamberlin, so I had to bow… didn't make me feel good at all

 

[NewDArt]

I went back and re-read DArt's post. Yes, ofcourse the concept is more complex, this whole being an evil character.

Call me a simpleton but I like games where good/evil actions are obvious because I always like choosing the "good" option - yes, the one that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. This is why I wasn't interested in Tyranny from the beginning. I know some people love this whole debate over "grey" actions but I'm not one of them - I go through this in real life and it stresses me. Gaming is sort of an escape from reality for me, I always want to be the good hero saving the world

While I am enjoying TW3, sometimes even that makes me uncomfortable with its "greyness".

Spoiler

I didn't want to bow to the Emperor but then realised that would cause some repercussion to the poor chamberlin, so I had to bow… didn't make me feel good at all

I hope it goes without saying that I don't believe in good people either. There's just people.

We're highly dynamic creatures and we're not bound to some kind of alignment system. Most of us don't even have any functional system of behavior as we tend to change the rules whenever they become inconvenient or we learn something new.

 

[purpleblob]

I hope it goes without saying that I don't believe in good people either. There's just people.

We're highly dynamic creatures and we're not bound to some kind of alignment system. Most of us don't even have any functional system of behavior as we tend to change the rules whenever they become inconvenient or we learn something new.

That we are, for one, my actions differ depending on who I am dealing with as well. But as I said, in game, I would like to play a plain and simple "good" character. Something that I will never be in real life but never-the-less something I want to be in game.

 

[NewDArt]

That we are, for one, my actions differ depending on who I am dealing with as well. But as I said, in game, I would like to play a plain and simple "good" character. Something that I will never be in real life but never-the-less something I want to be in game.

I can appreciate that. We all want different things when playing

 

[Dasale]

I went back and re-read DArt's post. Yes, ofcourse the concept is more complex, this whole being an evil character.

Call me a simpleton but I like games where good/evil actions are obvious because I always like choosing the "good" option - yes, the one that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. This is why I wasn't interested in Tyranny from the beginning. I know some people love this whole debate over "grey" actions but I'm not one of them - I go through this in real life and it stresses me. Gaming is sort of an escape from reality for me, I always want to be the good hero saving the world

While I am enjoying TW3, sometimes even that makes me uncomfortable with its "greyness".

The good/evil choices of RPG is because most players like choose the good choice, you aren't a rarity. Greed and good choices are the two base pillars of RPG.

If there are exceptions, it's more from players taking distance with the game, and just doing it for the fun, not really for being evil.

But limit dilemma choices to greyness is limitative (greyness would be neither good nor evil, or both). It's not about a problem of good/evil it's because it's difficult to choose. Save A or save B isn't greyness, and it can be a dilemma with a right context. When a game achieves to reach society topics, or even science fiction topics, it can build high dilemma choices without any greyness.

A dilemma requires to have catch the interest of player, so need be prepared and developed, so a game can hardly include many.

If many players like argue on those dilemma choices it's because they involve thinking on a topic, and arguing on it, which is a fun way to make the play live longer and deeper. Seeing the number of posts you do I have some doubts that you really don't like argue.

One example of dilemma in Dragonfall is related to AI to kill to avoid it becomes a threat in future, or to let live. It's well prepared by the game, with a phase where the AI looks potentially rather dangerous, and another phase with explanations of the weird phase and evocation of good aspect it could bring, and that kills it is killing a unique sentient, moreover later the game perversely makes the AI much more human like, something that could also be pure AI manipulation. And here come the dilemma and the arguing, and there's no good/evil mixture but a dilemma.

 

[Dasale]

Tyranny brought on the table another tool to give food for players to argue on something more than just weapons power and best spell.

It's the non clarified aspects of the story or of some characters. Not that it's just void, clues are thrown in game but none bring an evidence, even on some topics some NPC will argue on some hypothesis, and very few will be solved through multiple plays.

Frankly it's a dishonest writing, I'll admit it, but myself I found it great for two aspects, increase a lot curiosity and attention to all writing and even details (I think it would be better that a few more bizarre aspects would be explained through multiple plays), and it brought on table some topics to argue about, this adding some depth and extends to the plays.

Dilemma choices are more fair writing, but myself I enjoyed a lot the Tyranny approach.

 

[purpleblob]

If many players like argue on those dilemma choices it's because they involve thinking on a topic, and arguing on it, which is a fun way to make the play live longer and deeper. Seeing the number of posts you do I have some doubts that you really don't like argue.

It's the dilemma I dislike sometimes. Yes, it is an excellent tool to get players engaged but too much dilemma pushes me away from the game. For example (sorry for using TW3 example again, but this is most fresh in my mind since I am playing it right now), there was a quest where you make a choice to give a swallow potion to a girl who is ill - she will surely die if you don't but peacefully, whereas if you decide to give her a potion, she has chance to live or die very painfully. You cannot imagine the agony I went through to make a choice. And it's just a one SIDE QUEST. I can't go through these emotional turmoil too often lol.

 

[joxer]

Greed and good choices are the two base pillars of RPG.

In year 1990. I guess that was so.
In modern RPGs, it just doesn't work like that. At least not on PC.

For example, Expeditions2, the game itself, couldn't care less if you'll be greedy or not. Evil or not. This game's pillars are saving anywhere outside of combat, turnbased combat, no endless trashmob respawning, discouraging any kind of grind and relations with your protagonist, party and world wise.
While the game doesn't care, your crew members care a lot. Greedy "friends" will not be happy when you give a coin to a beggar while altruistic ones will adore if you don't steal something from an abandoned shrine. Aggresive ones will basically offer you their body when you attack innocent people, while peaceful ones will be thrilled if you avoid an upcoming slaugher just with your wits.

But okay. I didn't play Tyranny yet and it still makes buzz on this forum so I guess everyone else did finish it and know what they're talking about here. I'm talking about experience with other games that are (supposed to be) different from Tyranny.

Maybe Tyranny holds that obsolete only good choices and greed choices design. But in year 2017. on PC it's hard for me to believe it unless I see it myself.
Just lemme finish Regalia. Then I'll be able to answer was being evil in Tyranny fun to me. If being evil in it is even possible.

 

[Dasale]

It's the dilemma I dislike sometimes. Yes, it is an excellent tool to get players engaged but too much dilemma pushes me away from the game. For example (sorry for using TW3 example again, but this is most fresh in my mind since I am playing it right now), there was a quest where you make a choice to give a swallow potion to a girl who is ill - she will surely die if you don't but peacefully, whereas if you decide to give her a potion, she has chance to live or die very painfully. You cannot imagine the agony I went through to make a choice. And it's just a one SIDE QUEST. I can't go through these emotional turmoil too often lol.

Yeah that's a nasty variation of forced pathos. A game should include some forced pathos to include some emotions, without emotions it's a cold game. In ME3 let an option to allow main character survive is a disaster for the pathos management, with such awful choice, mc death is just a fail, and the pathos will be more irritating than writing working.

WRPG tend a lot more to skip emotions too much and end be cold, it's a major weakness of many WRPG, so no point complain when one has some forced pathos. Common being sad when reading a novel or watching a movie can feel good.

Further than forced pathos, video game can add the forced pathos choices, it's a good trick, and the badder you feel to make the choice, the better it could be.

Sure if a game abuse of such base trick it will be a total boredom, I don't remind any RPG that did that abuse, for JPRG the only abuse I quoted (didn't played many) is the abuse of cancelled pathos, dam for few at end I stop believe in any character death and I think I ended be right.

But I agree it's a difficult tool for a video game, Backguards 2 not only has a few very emotional steps, but its final mixing a lot of emotions is just huge. Definitely one of the best end I played in RPG. The problem is it makes replay it a bit rude, not sure I want experiment that once more, even if it was big.

 

[Dasale]

In year 1990. I guess that was so.
In modern RPGs, it just doesn't work like that. At least not on PC.

For example, Expeditions2, the game itself, couldn't care less if you'll be greedy or not. Evil or not. This game's pillars are saving anywhere outside of combat, turnbased combat, no endless trashmob respawning, discouraging any kind of grind and relations with your protagonist, party and world wise.
While the game doesn't care, your crew members care a lot. Greedy "friends" will not be happy when you give a coin to a beggar while altruistic ones will adore if you don't steal something from an abandoned shrine. Aggresive ones will basically offer you their body when you attack an innocent people, while peaceful ones will be thrilled if you avoid an upcoming slaugher just with your wits.

But okay. I didn't play Tyranny yet and it still makes buzz on this forum so I guess everyone else did finish it and know what they're talking about here. I'm talking about experience with other games that are (supposed to be) different from Tyranny.

Maybe Tyranny holds that obsolete only good choices and greed choices design. But in year 2017. on PC it's hard for me to believe it unless I see it myself.
Just lemme finish Regalia. Then I'll be able to answer was being evil in Tyranny fun. If being evil in it is even possible.

Im' pretty sure greed is still a pillar of RPG. Just check any RPG forum to show I'm clearly right.

For good choices, I don't know, it's a bet.

Expeditions 2 could be a counter example, from what I played of the Witcher 3, it isn't a counter example, and the grayed aspect changes nothing.

Tyranny, no links with both. To simplify, you are in a war, you need choose a side and at some point you are glued to it or continue alone and considered by all as a greedy egoist loner. This will force you to do some evil actions, but in general you'll have many choices of tempering the evil aspects of the side you choose.

For companions reactions to your actions the game is cool with player, on one path it's important to get a high level approbation of some to open some key choices, but in general it's not evil/good, they like you up to be faithful, or they fear you enough to ensure they'll be faithful. They could even be both, and both bring some bonus.

There's a relatively similar system for factions, and archontes (major leaders).

 

[joxer]

Just check any RPG forum to show I'm clearly right.

Lemme become blatantly "populist" for a sec to get some thumbs.

There is only one RPG forum on internet. This one on RPGwatch.
The rest are just wanabees equipped with horse blinkers.

 

[TomRon]

Lemme become blatantly "populist" for a sec to get some thumbs.

There is only one RPG forum on internet. This one on RPGwatch.
The rest are just wanabees equipped with horse blinkers.

Yeah but greed is the only driving force on this forum obviously?