Does anyone choose the EVIL options?

Yahtzee often mentions it on his videos.

The choice should be between "selfless" and "selfish". This is a meaningful moral choice.

Instead, you get stupid choices like "save the orphaned kittens" or "disembowel the kittens and bathe in their blood".

So you end up wondering what the hell your motivations would be for choosing any other path than the good path, unless you have a psychotic hatred for all living things.
 
And to elaborate on that point, how many people play "good" characters, then break into people's houses and steal all their stuff? That's a selfish act, right there, but many games don't consider it "evil" because no one got murdered.

If the choice was "be good, don't steal, have worse stuff but better reputation" or "be selfish, steal everything you see, be uber but generally disliked" that would be a difficult choice for many us, who are now so used to robbing every NPC blind while playing "good" characters.
 
@jimbob27 - Yeah, more neutral, but selfish as FoxEye said ~ agreed with that point. Obviously so much more to it than how games package things as Yahtzee exposes all inevitable shortcomings :D

I roleplay a good bit. Out of those two choices, the former would personally fit me, regularly stick to that path for all it's worth. So, yeah, I don't callously exploit those flaws, but enjoy depth/complexity as much and genuine as the game allows.

Latest example would be the Witcher 2, where you don't even have to bother picking locks to steal, as you can just take everything in their presence with total impunity! Case in point, I rather buy the cloth I need to craft my new trousers and wear them with dignity, thank-you-very-much :p However, if the NPCs were capable of properly noticing then I may steal if I'm low on orens and doing so fits that character.
 
Last edited:
When I get Fallout New Vegas I think I'll play through first as evil :D I can't be bothered restarting Dragon Age Origins (as much as I want to try the lesbian relationship with Leliana!). The plot is too much 'on rails' and I kinda hate replaying content I've seen before.
 
I've played fallout 3 about 5 times now and somehow I always end up being the saviour of the wasteland, must just be a phychological thing. I don't set out to do it, but then I don't try and do a Hitler either.
 
MidnightLamp said:
The problem is the evil run throughs are rarely beneficial. They normally just make your character look like a bit of a dick.
Click to expand...

Huh? I thought the point was that the 'evil' way was usually either the most immediately rewarding or the selfish way that meant you came out 'on top' in any such dealings.

Take Bioshock. You always got more for harvesting little sisters and being a selfish evil ******* while rescuing gave you half as much, but the intermittent gifts closed the gap.
 
In Bioshock I harvested
In ME1 I let the council die, human race expansion for the win
In ME2 I was good all the way through but kept the reaper technology, human race for the win.
In KOTOR2 I was as sith and sith could be. Lightning is awesome.
Dragon Age 1 and 2 I tried to stay Neutral.
Oblivion I was always a vampire assassin.
The Witcher I was straight down the centre and straight into Triss.
The Witcher 2 played selfishly, only intrested in Geralts goals and intercoursing with Triss.
 
In Mass effect 1 and 2 I was 100% renegade. I want the glowing demon face! The renegade options also feel quite natural to how I see Sheppard.

In the witcher i played as an amoral phsyco and did things like murder all the innocent beggars at night.

Not an RPG - but in Assassins Creed 1&2 I really enjoyed stabbing innocent people in the face!

In football Manager I always defend my players after red card/ violent behaviour e.g "he would have been praised for a tackle like that 20 yrs ago"
 
skippi90 said:
You... have issues. :p
Click to expand...

nah, being good is the default for most people in video games so I always go the evil way first, then play as a good guy afterwards. It is actually more fun being evil as you seriously don;t have to worry about anything, diplomacy is so 80's !! :P
 
I always play as the good guy.

Even when replaying games, sometimes i can't bring myself to choose the evil path. For example, in New Vegas, i just couldn't bring myself to kill all of the people in the Helios One place on either playthrough. Never blown up Megaton, always save the council in Mass Effect.

I have very rarely chosen the evil choice in any game i have played. It is just the way i have played games. Probably missing out on quite a bit of content
 
jomiyo said:
For those saying "as evil as possible", which do you consider to be 'more' evil... Cold, efficient evil or passionate, wild evil? Or does it depend on the context?

And, yes, I can sympathise with having a bit of trouble playing evil, heh.
Click to expand...

wild evil is best, murdering NPCs with wild abandon, kill everything that breathes friend or Foe
 
Playing a rogue in DragonAge I soon got into the habit of pickpocketing and unlocking/taking every item in every box; in some areas it was a fairly healthy and timely boost in experience that was otherwise just going to go to waste since nobody really cared I had just invited myself into their home and to all of their belongings.

It didn't go unnoticed by some townsfolk, particularly when I did it right in front of their faces (and/or failed), but otherwise never hit me with the moral dilemma it could have done and it was rare for anybody to really care about what I was doing.

Like, if I break into some house, open a cupboard, and steal all their medicine - sweet, now I can save my coins for something more practical like an armour or weapon upgrade.

If I then later found out the village was swept by a plague and the village doc didn't have the resources to save people, would it change my actions later in game? Would I feel guilt and try and be more of a robin hood with my abilities? Or would I just go even more extreme greed and just think damn, maybe next time I won't let my mission giver die a horrible death of sores and boils, since there'll be no payment after I get back doing their deeds - not until after they pay up anyway, then I'll rob them blind once I'm done with them.

Generally speaking I do find the games are tailoring more for the 'good acts' resulting in future plot twists and turns, than they do for the bad ones. Though the dialogue portions of DragonAge seemed a bit better balanced for delivering repurcussions from decision than the non-dialogue ones, and I guess interpreting intent/will from non-dialogue gameplay is going to be harder to do.

It's getting better IMO, but I don't usually set out with a goody-two-shoes or ultimate-tyrant game plan in mind, I prefer to roll with the punches and improve my outlook as I believe in the cause, or get more angsty and impatient once I tire of being given the runaround or double-crossed.
 
Last edited:
These options were more interesting, sure your character still comes off as a dick but they're not puppy-killing evil type decisions:


 
Evilsod said:
Huh? I thought the point was that the 'evil' way was usually either the most immediately rewarding or the selfish way that meant you came out 'on top' in any such dealings.

Take Bioshock. You always got more for harvesting little sisters and being a selfish evil ******* while rescuing gave you half as much, but the intermittent gifts closed the gap.
Click to expand...

In BioShock the rewards for harvesting were almost immediately negated, because if you saved them you were given top-up "gifts" by some chick at regular intervals.

BioShocks "evil" path was just the usual "I'm a dick" path.
 
Interesting to see so many people choose a specific alignment. I tend to play a more random style, assessing each situation on merit. I probably do err more towards the good side of neutral however.

Just finished Mass Effect 2 last night and I had a nearly full Paragon bar and at least a 75% full Renegade bar. The way I pay RPGs tends to be along the lines of, I'll be evil if it means I can gain money/items from it (demanding extra payment from poor people etc), but if it's some decision like, helping out some civilians or whatever that won't impact me financially, then generally I'll do it.

So essentially you could say I tend to be a person who has morals, but isn't afraid to bend them a little for personal gain. I always steal as much as possible.

It is extremely rare that I replay games, so I tend to find sampling a bit of both light and dark side works well for me, rather than playing the game like a robot and always choosing the good/evil option at every single opportunity.
 
I almost always choose the evil options as they are more entertaining. For example nuking Megaton in Fallout 3 is awesome but if you save it all you get is some crummy shack.

Also in games like Fallout I will save a bunch of people so I get good karma points or whatever....then stand back and gun them down.

Its far more entertaining and you get loads of loot. How people play RPGs without killing everyone and stealing all their stuff I will never know.

In ME though I do tend to play as a paragon as the renegade options are just a bit dickish. In conversations I like to be nice...then stab people afterwards.

In Bioshock I saved every little sister as the rewards for doing so faaar outweighed getting the extra Adam.


So to sum up I will do whatever it takes to get stuff as quickly and easily as possible. Why trawl through hours of conversations and quest running when you can shoot someone and get the same result but faster?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom