Why do most people who play video games choose to be moralfags?
Why not? Why do YOU choose to be an edgelord?
Probably because they've grown past the age of 12.
>>341935241
Because the choices for evil choices are retarded in most games. It's always like
>DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS THING FOR ME?
>OR DO YOU WANT TO SET THE ORPHANAGE ON FIRE AND KICK GRANDMA IN THE FACE?
Evil choices need to be more subtle, and they aren't.
Because
>choose to do good thing
>+1000000xp
>get this awesome loot man
>opens up more quests
>everyone likes you
>choose to do bad thing
>+50 xp
>-10000 karma
>game calls you a cunt
>nobody in towns wants to sell you stuff
>CIA puts you on the list of potential terrorists
>>341935241
Whatever gives me the best rewards
>>341935241
Why do some people, when given the opportunity, kill every single NPC in their game?
>>341935470
>>341935575
Children tend to enjoy moral centric protagonists. It appeals to the moral policeman freshly instilled in their young brain. Older audiences tend to enjoy characters who are reflective of real people, characters who are morally ambiguous or at the very least are logically fleshed out.
Adults who cling to black and white heroes are essentially overgrown children. It is likely they own every silly piece of plastic Nintendo has spawned and think the Nintendo NX is an innovation.
The bad path is usually the unfun shit path where the game is like "fuck you you awful price of shit kys". The genocide run in Undertake is a perfect example of hownotto do a "bad" route.
>>341935582
Pretty much this
You can either be a reasonable person, or a total fucking asswad.
There's no in between
Because I'm an insane person and a completionist. Evil paths tend to lock you out of content and it drives me nuts knowing I missed a quest chain or whatever.
I usually play neutral/good my first run, seeing as I want a happy ending with my party/friends looking up to me. I also do it first since I know I'll probably never play good again on subsequent playthroughs.
After that, I do a combination of don't give a fuck, power gamer, and evil, depending on the game.
There are exceptions. VTM:Bloodlines I always play good. It has a feel to close to my own reality, and the repercussions of murdering innocent humans in that game is far too great for a an evil playthrough(lose humanity, masquerade violations), so I just be myself for the most part.
New Vegas I'll do whatever gets me what I want. If I feel like slaughtering the great Khans, I will. If I'd rather have them around for their services/quests, I won't. Same goes for the BoS.
DA:O is about maxing out my DPS. I make a party full of the ultimate builds, and do whatever choices get me more money, loot, and exp.
>>341935913
>Brother liked superman and is married and has a career
>I liked the morally ambiguous shit and became a neet
>>341935241
>Why do most people who play video games choose to be moralfags?
Probably a few factors. One is that most games are have very mediocre, stereotypical 1 dimensional writing. There is no moral complexity like you'd see in the real world, no situations where there could be completely genuine, subjective disagreement on the best approach. Even something with just the slightest, shallowest bit of thinking about heroics like FSN is rare. Instead, most games do "good" and "evil" as
Choice 1: Be a shining selfless hero.
Choice 2: Go around setting puppies on fire randomly for no reason whatsoever.
Furthermore, a lot of games then lock lots of the best content, items and so forth behind the "good" choices. This ends up obviously pushing people to just pick good, it's a safe default and most people would rather not play a raging retarded asshole. Note, "retarded" I'm not talking about being a cool, badass asshole who actually has reasons, rather then LOLSORANDUM EBIL XD.
>>341935582
It's not like it's hard to make a sensible evil resolution. Just have the player take the role of the initial problem.
Sent to recover some magic item? Keep it for yourself.
Rescued a family member from kidnappers? Demand the ransom money as a service fee.
Recovered the orphanage's deed from the evil moneylenders? Evict the kids and turn the building into a brothel!
Fire Emblem is a good example on how to make good/evil decisions
>>341936062E D G E
>>341936325
I like to think of it this way, bud:
Look at the birds. They're so simplistic in comparison to us, yet they always have their shit together. I'm an adult human fucking being, and I can't get a family, a better job, or my own place, but these birds always manage.
My step-sister is legally mentally disabled(I don't know all the details), yet has a job, her own apartment, her lesbian girlfriend, and she drives.
See where I'm going with this?
We are real people. Everyone not like us are robots.
We gotta do something.
>>341935913
This.
Video games are for children, and children naturally are drawn to moral heroes.
>>341935241
Because the moral choice is always logically superior.
There's never a fucking enticing reward for evil, and if there is a reward for evil, or at least no consequences, you'll find people making those choices.
Look at a game like Fallout New Vegas.
You can bet your ass everyone in that game goes around stealing whatever isn't nailed to the floor because there is no mechanical consequence for it. Did anyone seriously avoid hacking every terminal and opening every safe in that game? Fucking no.
But then look at a game like Star Wars. Do you want to help this person and get increased XP, money, and companion bonds, or do you want to murder him for no reason and piss everyone off? Durr, I wonder why nobody picks that option!
The best "morality" systems for games is pragmatic asshole who does the optimal thing even if it pisses people off, and the hippy dippy nice guy who does the thing that makes everyone happy, but actively fucks over his actual mission and isn't sustainable.
By the end of the game, both moral systems should leave the player feeling a bit of strain as they wonder whether or not they've done the right thing. Pragmatic dick sees a world that hates him, hippy bro see a world that is woefully under-prepared and is not realistically sustainable, and the neutral faggot looks at the world and wonders if he made any impact at all.
>>341935241
Because most people aren't assholes.
>>341935913
You're right about moral goodness resonating with children. However, can you prove maturity brings fondness on morally ambiguous characters? Mass audiences seem to prefer simple characterization, young and old.
>>341937430
Leave your basement sometime kiddo.
Which is the worse way to handle being evil?
-Threaten or kill the quest-giver to take his reward, not bothering to do the quest at all.
-Doing the entire quest like normal just to have one dick moment at the end for karma points
>>341937532
>However, can you prove maturity brings fondness on morally ambiguous characters?
Almost every mature piece of fiction meant for adult audiences has ambiguous if not full blown evil protagonists.
First playthrough is "good" since that's kind of the intended story 90% of the time
Second playthrough is "evil"
>>341937545
If you can leave your basement and still think people are all assholes, you're just a giant prick.
I'm often astounded by how stupid and ugly the average person is, but I don't think they're assholes.
>>341935241
It gets you the most in-game pussy.
>>341937703
Nobody ever pushes the indifferent playthrough.
What is "evil"? Sounds like christfag bullshit. There's good and then there's bad and all of it is contextual.
>>341937765
You are a child, mentally if not literally.
>>341935582
>>341936660
I'm not sure "subtle" is even right either anons, I think the best moral writing is the kind of thing where people would have long threads arguing about who was evil or not. This can go from small scale all the way to large scale.
To take the orphanage example, it'd be more like
>We just noticed this infectious disease appear in the orphanage, we have only limited Heal potions, this is on the outskirts of a reasonably sized town. Party has protection, but that's it.
>Incinerate it and everyone inside and around, or try to heal what kids you can? Or just don't get involved.
And then have it actually be a real choice either way. Like, if you incinerate it all, you really do prevent any spread whatsoever, but all the kids, caregivers and so on die, and the general world has a mixed opinion with some supporting and some not. Conversely, if you choose to try to save the kids you have to pick, but you really do 100% save them, the potions work and cure/inoculate against the disease. But then it does spread, and 5-10% of the town ultimately dies (with a bunch of others getting very sick). Or if you don't get involved the orphans mostly all die + a bunch of the town, but you can press on with your quest and you have those valuable potions for something important later.
On a larger scale, you might decide to ultimately conquer the kingdom, murdering the king and his entire family, all loyal nobles, etc. Tons of blood will flow, it's "evil", but then you actually get to run it far better and advance society in general. Tyrant in the classic, Greek sense. Yes, you benefit too of course, you're an evil overlord and ruthless against your enemies, but a happy productive dynamic population is something you support too and is also to your benefit.
>>341935715
Just like real life except with less monetary reward for evil
>>341937910
>>341937545
Are you going to start ranting to us about femnazis next?
>>341937681
Why are you so sure about that? Can you give examples on what you mean with "mature fiction".
I think a morality system shouldn't be a meter or a counter of points, but rather feed back into the game with visible consequence.
Let's use Fallout as an example. No particular one. You go into Bobs house and steal his shotgun, and empty his safe. You find out later that - due to one of many random events that can affect NPCs - a burglar broke into his house one night and killed him. He had no weapon to defend himself. Or perhaps a week after you robbed him he lost the farm because he couldn't pay his taxes.
This brings up a better morality system. If it's a character you might like or care about, or an important merchant you want to buy from, or a side-quest giver you want to complete quests for, you don't want to be negatively affecting their future. Maybe stealing John's expensive equipment from his shop is enough for him to go out of business?
You then have a more complicated evil system this way. You can rob this guy or sabotage his business, just to see how far he'll fall. You find him in a bar one night, then turns out he committed suicide.
Maybe you killed some woman's husband in the wastes. Then find out from a woman in town that her husband and father of their daughter was murdered.
Consequences. Interconnected choices.
Granted, this is more complicated stuff, but it's not too far from what Bethesda has been trying to do with radiant AI and quests(albeit horribly). It will have to have some randomness and generation to it, but the system can still work.
>>341937910
Says the edgelord shitposter baiting people on the internet to make himself feel like he matters for a second.
Pretty ironic you're sitting there calling other people manchildren and basement-dwellers when you're such a raging immature piece of shit.
>>341935241
Because being evil is often illogical, impractical, gives lesser rewards in the long run, closes so many options and is most importantly, not fun.
If you can find a game which fix or avoid these points, tell me.
>>341938135
The Sopranos
The Wire
Breaking Bad
Game of Thrones / ASOIAF
No Country for Old Men
Mad Men
Boardwalk Empire
Meanwhile, all the pro-moralfags have is capeshit and even then the people who make those movies don't even care if they write the superheroes as good guys.
>>341935241
Because everything is guaranteed to go well if you're good.
>Trust everyone and be nice, everyone rides your dick and you get a nice bonus later
>Literally commit genocide, have to shoot your friends and the game calls you a cunt
>>341938160
>Game without moral points
>You try to do what you feel is right
>Everyone dies and it's all your fault
No "They will remember this".
No points going up and down.
Just you knowing that you fucked everything up.
>>341938106
>>341938191
Different cultures, different people, different ethics. Humanity as a whole has done everything you can imagine. And felt fine with it as well. Cannibalism, rape, murder, genocide. All these things and more, things you and your simplistic child like black and white view of the world decree as unethical and immoral, have been, and currently, and will continue to be viewed as perfectly fine by various cultures, groups, and individuals.
Humanity is a kaleidoscope of gray, and refuses to be classified by your binary rule set.
>DUDE BLOW UP THE MERCHANT CITY FOR A SMALL SHORT TERM BENEFIT LMAO
>>341937167
Pragmatic dicks get often scolded already in the games. It's the hippies that don't get penalized. If there's a dumb plan where you can save everyone, it almost always succeeds. It'd be fun if being too naive would cause some serious damage and death on your favourite characters once in a while. In most games the penalty for being naive is just a small loss on gold which doesn't matter in the long run.
>>341935241
being "Evil" usually just entails killing everyone and breaks down all the rules and makes it feel like one note
>Shoot everyone in the face and be a cunt to your friends because loldoevil, get no bonus and the game bites you in the ass
>Behave like a human being, get 1000000 credits or final boss becomes easier or some shit
>>341938160
That makes sense, although to avoid typical edginess there should be some significant flipside too. Like, Bob's shotgun is at that point in the game the most powerful weapon you could find, much more then you'd be able to afford or find until a while later. Having it opens up a few new options for dealing with a major fight, maybe letting you kill a group so fast that someone who would have died otherwise now doesn't. So you end up having to weigh the value of different lives and risks. Or you can stick to a rigid code and deal with the positives and negatives, or just do whatever and same thing.
>>341936661
robbing a dude for his J's is not a moral choice
>>341935241
The conceptulization of good and evil are very arbitrary and restrictive which often leads to two primary archtypes of "regular human fucking being" and "the literal spawn of satan himself". Systems that have a muddy middleground or utilize karmic systems or multi-level reputation ala Fallout: New Vegas are on the right track but very few games seem to be able to really pinpoint how to make someone feel like they're a bad guy, but not fucking hitler. I don't mind doing smarmy or otherwise low-class shady bullshit to achieve a goal that could be selfish, but I feel many of the "blow up megaton for like twenty bucks" kind of examples of situation resolution is way too cartoony evil to enjoy. It detracts from the realism of a game when my options are to play as a regular person or a supervillain.
You guys are pretending modern video game moral choices don't boil down to liberal - gooood, conservative -baaad
Because your average gamer isn't an edgelord or a sociopath.
>>341938418
You know, Xenoblade X kinda did just that.
There's no difference in rewards, no "morality" system, just the choices you made, and the consequences.
You thought sparing that boar family was a good idea? Well, a chapter later someone's dead, and it's all your fault.
No one calls to inform you, no one berates your actions. He's just dead and gone, killed by rampaging boars.
>>341938850
Friendly reminder that anyone who actively participates in politics is a retard or a hopeless fanatic.
>>341938873
/v/ is living proof that you are wrong.
>>341938449
Right, but morality is 100% subjective, and that's why everyone who does something I think is wrong is doing evil.
>>341938637
Yeah, this. Being a hero should be an option and earn rewards, but it should be hard and have costs too. Trying to have it all should result in failure unless you are very, very very good and even then there should be some risk.
>>341938449
All I said to you is that people aren't always pricks, and now you're reflecting a similar sentiment right back at me like you're dispensing wisdom.
Are you high? Are you following this thread of conversation on any level?
>>341939047
Are you buddy? What you are claiming as a blanket statement about mankind if objectively false by your won standards.
>>341938997
>/a/, /v/ and fucking Nietzsche used as examples of acceptable human behavior
>>341938949
okay, everyone should just stop participating in politics and let the government do whatever the hell they want.
>>341938997
>implying /v/ is most gamers
>>341938949
No, just an adult rather then an edgy retarded brat. Not that >>341938850 isn't a stupid faggot too of course.
>>341938997
>/v/
>"average gamer"
L-lol?
>>341939016
>>341939047
In the grand scheme of things, feeding the homeless is no 'better' than murdering them because 'better' suggests there's a definite, indisputable measure of morality, which there isn't because morality changes.
Actions therefore can only be judged on how they help the species as a whole. Killing is thought of as 'wrong' and yet nobody bats an eyelid over the amount of killing we're doing in the Middle East to defend truth, justice and freedom and all that jazz.
There are no absolutes. There's no such thing as pure good or pure evil. They're synthetic constructs. Raping a child has some good elements because it brings pleasure to the rapist. You may find that repulsive, but you can't deny it. Making people happy is always seen as an admirable quality.
The best way to provide a functional morality system is to make the virtuous path more difficult and less rewarding, that way the alternative might actually be more attractive.
>>341935241
'cause i feel like a dick if i act like an edgy evil guy.
Unless it's SMT in which case Neutral > Chaos >>>>>>>>>>>> Law.
>>341935241
Need to be more like FTL desu, it's there but doesn't actually impact the gameplay.
>>341937894
In general, I'd say any act that intentionally disregards or promotes a negative impact on another group of people qualifies as evil. The problem with this is it means an action itself can't be inherently good or evil, but the intentions of the person behind the actions which is something that can't be accurately scrutinized.
>>341938850
Actually they don't, unless you consider blowing Megaton as a ''conservative'' thing, which I can't fathom how could it be.
Or maybe you should just stop false flagging your victimhood, you are supposed to be better than them.
>>341939265
>nobody bats an eyelid over the amount of killing we're doing in the Middle East to defend truth, justice and freedom and all that jazz.
You now realize this is why Americans are called retards even though nobody but rednecks and idiots would agree with it.
>>341939047
>>341938191
That's the real root of the moralfag hypocrisy though. Their actions and decisions simply aren't founded in any reasonable human behavior, and make unbelievable and shitty characters because of it. The only reason they can do it is because they're given lolplot super powers and virtually never feel any repercussions for their actions.
As an example from the vidya. someone like Ramza typically isn't called a moralfag despite the fact he constantly makes decisions that benefit others rather than himself. This is because he constantly struggles and sacrifices to do what he wants. He loses friends, is forced to kill relatives, and gains absolutely no honor or fame for his actions until long long after his death. He's never shown as feeling superior for his "good" choices, he simply does what he wants to do for his own reasons and that's that.
Meanwhile, Delita who pushes for the same goals with completely different means is never really viewed as evil because at the end of the day his "selfish" actions are truly beneficial to the entire kingdom for generations.
Human beings aren't complicated, which is why moralfags are looked down upon, when they're somehow even more shallow than an already simple subject. Evil characters typically avoid the same stigma because the excuse is usually that they're lolinsane
>>341935241
>Good path
>Broken as shit unique sword
>Evil Path
>100 gold
>>341938761
Exactly. There needs to be some conflict and hard choices. Do the ends justify the means?
I want to be in a world full of people that are connected to one another. One guy in one town obviously has brothers in another town. Maybe if I robbed and killed some guy, then his brother will leave the game altogether. Where even mundane decisions can have bigger repercussions. I want each play through to be substantially different than the previous.
I think more choices and consequences are where games - specifically RPGs - need to go. Bigger worlds aren't worth a shit if there's nothing to do in them. If there is no chaos to have, or things to change.
>>341939265
>In the grand scheme of things, feeding the homeless is no 'better' than murdering them
As a general concept and part of an overall strategy it is usually better, because I say so. Duh. It aligns with my personal axioms and goals, which makes it the morally correct choice. I'm right and you're wrong. You have a poor understanding of morality.
>because 'better' suggests there's a definite, indisputable measure of morality, which there isn't because morality changes.
Hah, you have it 100% backwards. It's because it's not definite that I'm always right and can judge you and everyone else.
>>341935241
Because I tend to empathize with characters in games and would rather not harm them if possible
Plus being a good person is fun and is particularly satisfying if it's the harder option
>>341939485
t.Mohammad
>>341939129
>your won standards
So smart you are
Anyway, how the fuck do you seriously think you can seriously sit there and hold the opinions "Morality is fake" and "People are all assholes" simultaneously without being some kind of retarded edge golem?
I think morality is one big gray area too, despite what you've retardedly assumed. What I was trying to tell you is that calling someone a basement-dweller because they're not a bitter faggot that complains about life all the time makes you an immature shithead.
That's the crux of this conversation, something you're not prepared to understand.
>>341939552
What are you doing?
Like if you think this is some some super intellectual lampoon of moralfags you're really falling short of the mark buddy.
Who here /neutralevil/?
>>341939631
Care to explain how you made the tremendous leap in logic from 'morality is fake' to 'bitter faggot that complains about life all the time' ? Where did that even come from?
>>341939681
No, I'm 100% serious. That is how I think, and I am correct. I'm not sure if you're the anon who I was replying to or not, but if you are you're wrong and you need to do some more thinking and studying.
>>341938352
I haven't watched most of these, but there are some characters in there the audience can easily relate to. Characters that are doing bad things for good reasons, which don't really make them morally ambiguous.
Adults love capeshit and Bond films and movies with clear heroes too. I wouldn't say growing old automatically distances you from the black and white mentality, which can be stronger with younger people however.
>>341939845
>Adults love capeshit and Bond films and movies with clear heroes too.
No they don't.
> Characters that are doing bad things for good reasons, which don't really make them morally ambiguous.
How easy it is to tell you didn't watch any of those.
>>341939494
I wasn't talking about morality idiot, check again before you assume shit.
I was just calling him an edgy tard. That's all. I don't give a shit about your perspective simply because I did not engage anyone in a conversation about that, and the fact that you're pretending I did means I'm in for a shitty discussion where you just strawman everything I while you jerk off in a delusional haze.
Not worth it at all, fuck off.
>>341939631
> how the fuck do you seriously think you can seriously sit there and hold the opinions "Morality is fake" and "People are all assholes" simultaneously without being some kind of retarded edge golem?
Because it's true, you retarded fuck? Amazing I know.
>>341939514
Why do evil dicks even need the extra gold? Can't they just rob stores? This shit should be the other way around so the good guy can go shopping and the evil guy and kill better.
>>341939974
You aren't contributing anything to this thread. Go play your video games kid.
>>341935241
Because being nice in a videogame is actually rewarding, being nice in real life only means everyone is going to take advantage of you
>>341935241
>Wolf Among Us
>Rough up the Woodsman
>Hooker is going through his pockets for her pay
>He's broke
>Get the option to give her money
Yeah fucking right, take a hike you slut.
>Chapter end results
>You and 17% of players didn't give a hooker free money
>SEVENTEEN PERCENT
>>341939776
Let me go ahead and quote some of your posts because you have the memory of a goldfish (At least, pertaining to stuff that makes you look like an asshat.)
>You are a child, mentally if not literally.
>Leave your basement sometime kiddo.
Must have been some real TRIGGERING stuff to make you react that way, huh?
Oh wait! All that was said was "Because most people aren't assholes." and you started fuming like a toddler before pretending like you had some deep intellectual leg to stand on when people called you out for being an edgelord.
Why don't you go teleport behind yourself and shove your cock up your ass, it's what you've been dying to do this whole time anyway, right?
>>341939578
Well said anon. It's fun being a good person.
>>341940270
It's your own very desperate assessment that I am angry. I'm not. You come off as far madder my friend. As if befitting one with the mind of a child to throw a tantrum.
>>341935582
It's hard to make an evil path be subtle and still be obviously evil from choice one.
Like, they could make a series of vague choices, whose moral implications don't become clear until very late in the game, but then the tumblrfags and SJWs would go into hysterics because suddenly they find themselves stuck on an 'evil' path when they didn't even realize they'd been heading down that path.
Some games DO make you make the tough calls and deal with the consequences of your actions, but they're rare.
Tactics Ogre is about the only game that pulls this off right. At the end of the first chapter you're literally faced with a choice that is presented to you as:
>Massacre this village of innocent people who just want to be left alone and live in peace
Or
>Don't go along with the plan and your entire race will be genocided by the enemy army
Hint: The right choice is to massacre the village. Not because it's the right thing to do, per se, but because it makes the protagonist stop being such a namby who thinks that all he has is to do the 'right thing' and everything turns out sunshine and rainbows.
He knows he fucked up and spends the rest of the game trying to atone for it.
Conversely, if you rebel against the plan, the village still gets massacred and he ends up on the run, framed for it. And he spends the rest of the game never really leaving his moral high horse despite accomplishing very little and making a lot of things worse.
>>341939810
>He thinks morality is relative
How's undergrad?
>>341940365
>I'm not mad, YOU'RE MAD!!!
Ok, I'm done talking with you.
Fuck off, kid.
>>341940482
You're definitely angry though. I understand though. I expect no more of a moralfag to throw impotent tantrums as I would a chimp to fling its own feces.
What games lock you out of content /items for being evil? Can you give examples? I know they're there, I just can't think of any.
>>341939547
Programmatically though this is a very tough, interesting problem to scale, because beyond a very tiny level it rapidly becomes too much for even a fairly significant team to do well. I've seen some cool research attempting to do this and been playing around with some approaches with another grad student based around dynamically re-weighted network nodes with some RNG mixed in. It's not proc gen exactly, because each node (generally an NPC) is crafted and written as an asset like normal, but the idea is that there won't be any trees to do either. Instead there will be different values that can shift based on links and effects that can be built up individually, so the outcome is dynamic to the player and doesn't have to be pre-programmed.
To give an example let's go back to Bob. We might have a few hidden values associated with Bob, like his combat power and financial power. The idea would be you'd set that at the start, and then occasionally roll against RNG for various "challenges". Something like the shotgun would represent a big chunk of combat power, so if it's taken suddenly he's much more likely to fail that kind of roll in the background. However, the programmer doesn't have to actually specifically make that a tree, there's no "if player does this then that" explicitly written. Also, it's easy to add and change around stuff, like if you took the shotgun but left a knife it'd decrease his combat power less. Or if you left the safe, he might use financial power to increase his combat power (buy a new weapon). All of this could be done with just assertions, then leave it to the engine, which would scale way WAY better in terms of human developer time.
I don't know how it'll ultimately turn out but I agree it'd be fun to see something like that done well as part of a serious AAA title someday.
Chaotic Good>all
>>341940458
>he thinks it's not despite the real world objectively showing that it is
Too bad for you there is no treatment for clinical narcism or mental retardation.
>>341935715
More like
>Good thing
>Good reward
>Less in-game currency
>Evil thing
>No loot, or shit loot
>More in game currency
>>341940709
>Not being True Neutral
>Not doing what you think is right regardless of peer pressure
>Soul Sacrifice Delta
>Sacrificing a wounded enemy levels up attack power and Saving them levels up defense
>Go into the game intending to Save every single possible creature, large or small
>Quickly realize that my level 1 attack power is making things much more difficult than they could be
>Sacrifice a few animals but feel bad about it
>Progress in the game
>Eventually stop feeling bad about slaughtering animals entirely and see them as nothing but a resource
>Eventually a human being drops an item that I want via Sacrifice
>Kill him without much thought
>Realize what I've become as his blood sprays and pools at my feet>Continue to murder humans for unique drops
341939913
I've seen enough. The Sopranos father tries to become a better person. The Breaking Bad father tries to secure his family's future. In GoT everyone's trying to make things better for their friends and families, save for a few sociopaths.
I think that makes them good.
And there are plenty of 30-40+ adults that are into capeshit and classical Die Hard style action heroes who fight generic villains.
>Game makes me feel bad for being evil
>Evil ending has everyone die/the world be destroyed
I can't.
Why can't there just be a game where I play as a guy who's twisty mustache evil and just wants to rule the world and hoard all the world's riches?
>>341940958
Holy fuck you have never seen any of those shows.
>>341940880
>I don't subscribe to your petty morals
>I'm my OWN master HEH HEH
>>341940431
the key to truly well done evil paths is either you go whole hog as a ng+ route and cut loss, or you remember 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'
with the former you just run with it being a non canon bonus you don't have to justify shit and can just revel in it. Soul nomad's evil route is great for this because that's exactly what it does. keeps going more and more over the top until it starts getting just dark how far you are falling.
the latter is hard to do unless you just avoid the tropes of making the good path 'pay' out. Witcher and DA origins do by just making people cheapasses who won't pay unless pressed will organically make players a bit more neutral just to make sure they get their due.
the best evil route needs to be a slow burn of making constant minor concessions until you eventually are doing the outright evil stuff and didn't realize you transitioned.
>>341941012
Yes I have. What makes you think I haven't?
>>341941073
That's Neutral Evil though.
>>341940958
did you miss the part when walt admitted to himself he was doing it for the thrill
>>341941186
The fact you're wrong about all of them?
>>341940901
>huh, that sounds interesting
>vita only
>well, rats, but maybe later
>Inafune
Wow seriously, the guy did an interesting decently imaginative and well rated game in recent history, then went on to make MN9? What the fuck happened? Why didn't he just try to make more Soul Sacrifice or something, or work on more nepnep. Fucking stupid.
>>341935241
Moralistic characters are the worse characters, because not only are they unrealistic "hurr hurr I'm so damn selfless" but are also because "HA HA I'M ONLY DOING THIS THING CALLED GOOD BECAUSE SOME FAG AND SOCIETY TOLD ME SO AND I HAVE NO CONCEPT OF THOUGHT AND FREEDOM! EVEN THOUGH SOCIETY IS THE ONE CAUSING ALL THE PROBLEMS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!"
>>341939423
>Actually they don't, unless you consider blowing Megaton as a ''conservative'' thing, which I can't fathom how could it be.
Well, it does involve fucking over poor/normal people for the sake of rich people. That's a long-standing tenet of conservatism.
>>341940593
>beyond a very tiny level it rapidly becomes too much for even a fairly significant team to do well
A lot of choices only have local consequences, e.g. the example with the farmer and the shotgun. Whether the farmer survives or not only has immediate consequences to him and his family. It won't matter to the greater picture but it makes the world feel much more alive.
> The idea would be you'd set that at the start, and then occasionally roll against RNG for various "challenges".
While an interesting concept, I don't think it's necessary to make it that elaborate. Simply check at a certain point in the game whether the shotgun is still present in his house. If it's there he survives, if it's not there then the next time you visit the location the farm has been burned down and NPCs comment on farmer Bob's shotgun having gone missing and him having been unable to defend himself that night when the raiders came.
Mostly because games don't give you compelling reasons to act evil.
It's very rare that someone we consider evil sees himself as such, but rather just doing what circumstances dictates.
Games tend to be afraid of presenting players with situations that at once ambiguous enough, depowering enough and threatening enough that players would feel the need to take the "evil" choice.
AS long as games only offer players empowering tales where they are heroes and can do anything, thne players will choe good because the only "evil" choices will be mustache-twirling villain ones.
I'm glad that karma systems are mostly gone. What was the last game that even had them?
>>341940901
I should get around to emulating that.
Does anyone have the screencap about anon playing Fallout New Vegas and shooting the old lady in the face for her glasses because of the Four Eyes perk?
>>341941239
I'm not wrong. It's all about family and friends. Everyone else is a liability or an enemy. Betray your family and friends, and we're talking morally ambiguous.
>>341941235
I didn't watch Breaking Bad or Sopranos that much. But GoT I know well enough.
>>341941746
watch breaking bad, man
>>341940880
>doing what you think is right regardless of peer pressure
That sounds more like Neutral Good.
http://www.strawpoll.me/10522852
Time to separate the real /v/irgins from the Redditors
Because when you grow up, you realize the true wisdom of The Golden Rule.
>>341941779
It's boring and dumb desu
>fable comes out
>evil end gives you a dank ass sword
>TLC expansion comes out
>being good gives you a good sword too
other than that i think the entire game was fucking dope
i replay it every couple of years and i havent really been let down yet
>Please save my children from wolves
>okay (reputation +1, 200g reward)
>no (reputation -1, if you kill quest giver they don't have 200g and you get a further reputation -1)
Games aren't balance for evil
Most people rob every house in every town blind either way
>>341941837
The only people that have a problem with Kenshiro are people that know he would kill them if they ever met.
>>341935241
I usually play as evil as possible because it's fun.
I kinda enjoy torturing people. Kinda makes me feel better about myself.
>>341942120
That's always been the case with /v/
>>341941408
On a societal level putting stores where being selfish, greedy, manipulative, and generally just nakedly evil gets rewarded isn't really a good idea in a genre that targets children.
Unless you WANT the entire western world being overrun by kids even MORE sociopathic than they already are.
Kids these days are already scoring higher than ever before on psychopathy tests. Excessive gaming causes a disassociation with reality and online gaming is an environment of zero consequence and accountability, which is ripe grounds for a burgeoning sociopath to go deep in the paint and turn into the kinds of people who frequent /pol/
>>341935241
I've noticed that the 'evil' choice in games often makes the gameplay more difficult.
With the amount of casuals, I can see why they'd pick the 'easier' 'choice'.
I do what I feel is right for the character I'm playing as.. but it also depends on the situation. If it involes a jackass or two I'm gonna prioritize myself for sure.
>>341942195
Yeah blame video games for the moral degradation of society, keep that smoke screen up Achmed
>>341941837
Most of the time I see someone getting called a moralfag on 4chan, it's when they are vocally disgusted about people enjoying snuff webms or guro.
I've got an idea.
So, there are two types of evil, right? Mis-understood and Irredemable. The first is obviously something that starts out well intentioned, but loses it's way. And Irredemable is just greedy selfish stuff for one's own sake or for shits and giggles.
Depending on how you want to go about it, you just pick a mix of the two.
>>341942347
>left
"Why can't we all just get along?"
>far left
"Isn't it a little racist to call it Black Friday?"
>right
"Why can't people be more self reliant so we have less government up our asses in everything?"
>/pol/
"Why couldn't Hitler have won? This is clearly a plot by the global Jew."
>>341943186
So why can't we pick the good aspects from both and leave the extremist shitters aside?
>>341943406
Because the left is fundamentally self-destructive, mentally ill and unreasonable
>>341943406
Because the extremist shitters on each side think the other side is fucking retarded and refuse to work with them. See>>341943524
>>341939180
fun fact: the "/v/ hates moralfags" meme has been going for roughly longer than the asserted time period of actual moralfag hatred could've lasted
>>341942195
a) I don't know that I agree. Just because you put evil choices doesn't mean it has to feel rewarding.
One things some people hate with Dishonored, but I kinda respect is its refusal to pat people on the back for being trigger-happy mass murderers (which you basically *have* to be to get the high chaos ending). Sure, you can kill people like there's no tomorrow, and sure, it can be fun given all those options you have, how powerful you are... but you're certainly not making the world around you a better place; and the game refuses to lie about it.
b) Who said games *had* to be targeted at children?
c) I think you'll find people being sociopathic in the western world has probably more to do with how both hyper narcissistic and hyper-passive their social contexts has made them - there's something fascinating in seeing children right *now* being offered toys and looking for, then watching at videos of other children playing with those very same toys- the way their elder use let's plays - rather than play themselves.
>>341944321
/v/ never really stopped hating moralfags though.
>>341935241
I want to play as someone who is out for themselves, and if it helps other people, so be it.
look at mass effect, there are some things like the telling the person the whole place is going to blow, and making them panic, thats an evil choice i would take, but to get that choice i have to murder 8 families, commit genocide 3 times and then literally shit down someone's mom's neck while they watch.
I want to be the asshole who gets shit done.
I want to command respect not for what who I am but for what I do
And NO game really does this for me.
either i'm a goodie goodie or literally hitler, and i lean more good then i do bad in real life.
make evil not edge lord levels of comically evil, make the fucking game have some reasoning for why evil is an equally valid choice and there you go ill play evil and good.
but most games will get one run from me, and i want to make that run as close to 'perfect' as it will get.
>>341944170
Yeah, if only John McCain was president.
>>341943524
>self-destructive, mentally ill and unreasonable
And the right isn't?
The right is half heartedly bowing down to Trump despite the fact that they ALL hate him. Just because they hate the left MORE.
That's the mentality of a suicide bomber- they hate YOU being alive more than they like THEMSELVES being alive.
Whether Trump wins or loses, the GOP is finished as an institution. The liberals won. They won with a candidate that's literally the target of a federal investigation that MIGHT VERY WELL lead to felony charges (if the FBI keeps dragging their feet and avoiding interviewing her or anyone else that could get her indited until she gets into office and is immune to prosecution).
Might as well pack your bags and make your escape plans, because the country is finished.
Whoever wins we lose.
>>341935715
>games are a way to weed out the bad
There's no way that's right
>>341935241
Because games tend to fall into Option A or Option B route.
Option A is being really fucking good. If you want all these goodies you have to be a good boy and do the right thing.
Option B is being the totally evil guy: If you want the rewards for this you have to do the most evil thing no matter what. And most of the time they're just really fucking stupid choices.
You can't mix it up because then you don't get the best stuff in either route or worse: the game will FORCE you to go back and farm up some more positivity/negativity before you can make the choice you think is right or say fuck it and just do what's available.
If you play like yourself you'll end up with:
Option AB: the "neutral" path in that it's not nearly as satisfying as going fully either other route if it's any different at all from one of them minus rewards.
I'm also pretty sure that the good path usually has better rewards in general, but maybe I just haven't played enough of games with "IMPORTANT MORAL CHOICES"
>>341944591
Had Obama been a one-term president - but not a two-term as we got or a no-term alternative - the current political atmosphere would be far less toxic and the the next four years would look far less fucked.
I retroactively wish Romney had won.
t. lifelong Democrat
>>341943186
To be fair, the Jews are pretty much controlling the world through greed, so I suspect Hitler wasn't totally wrong.
>>341945896
>the Jews are pretty much controlling the world through greed,
If they weren't, some other group would.
>>341935241
Because 9 times out of 10 you get the best rewards for being a champion of justice.
>>341945967
You don't know that please.
>>341935241
Becase basically every game with moral choices the good storyline is significantly better written than the bad.
>>341946178
Examples?
>>341935913
Except there is no moral ambiguity in most games that feature choices. It's either full Gandhi or full Hitler.
>>341946379
OK and? Did you even read anything I said you stupid fuck?
>>341946379
>Witcher 3
>>341938997
All I see are a bunch of edgy faggots who think every 'good' character is Kenshiro. They are seriously trying to imply that doing the objectively right thing of stopping a murder should you have the power to is as bad if not worse than being a serial killer.
>>341935582
>>341935715
These two, but also the fact that sometimes the "true" or best ending requires you to be a moralfag.
>>341946634
You're aware you're opening yourself up to many, many forthcoming arguments in support of that claim right?
>>341935913
Long time no see, Quentin.
>>341946841
Quentin and Akagi were two total opposites dude
>>341935241
Herp derp I make pie charts. Derrr
I live out my violent hateful self in games and always hurt kill etc.
>>341945546
>>341946485
Not him, but reading what he's replying too, you sound pretty fuckin' dumb.
You say:
>Black and White viewpoints are for children and adult-children. True adults prefer realistic ambiguity.
He say:
>Black and White Viewpoints are chosen because that's all there is in most games The "realistic ambiguity" isn't there.
He totally read what you wrote, man. No need to feel booty blasted.
>>341946841
Quentin is a ridiculously straightedged faggot. So much so that I feel like a rebel compared to him despite my goal beingto join the FBI
>>341947572
I imagine they won't hire you if you browse /v/
>>341946485
Yup, "characters who are morally ambiguous or at the very least are logically fleshed out." which you claim adults tend to gravitate towards are not present is most game with "moral choice". Either full Hitler or full Gandhi. So your "point" is mostly moot because we either get to be an edgelord or a moral fag 99% of the time.
>Why not? Why do YOU choose to be an edgelord?
>Probably because they've grown past the age of 12.
so i'm bringing the conversation BACK to their questions, did you even read anything they said you stupid fuck?
>>341946841
Are you retarded, Quentin's whole thing was being moral and straight-edge, meanwhile Akagi literally advocated child rape and mass murder, I would've loved to have seen them go head to head just once.
>>341935241
Because real life is awful, miserable, and evil. At least in video games I can try to make things a little better.
>>341947757
The statement clearly went beyond the scope of video games you dumb shit.
>Why do YOU choose to be an edgelord?
Loaded question.
>>341947730
I imagine my pirated vidya, movies ande-bookswould be a dealbreaker.
>>341947757
Is Hitler really the worst and opposite of Gandhi.
>>341949238
Hitler and Gandhi were friends too.
>>341935582
Too true. I was playing Mass Effect for the first time today and the "calm down" option for one of the scientists was knocking him unconscious. Then another quest where this dude wanted his wife's corpse I understood the negative option as "Your wife's a hero, studying her body will allow us to protect humanity from possible Geth attacks, you'll get her when you're done." it turned into me telling the guy to fuck off and that dead is dead and to get over it.
>>341939164
Thats what the government does anways
>>341935913
I think you and a lot of other anons are confusing the subject here. It's about what actions they take as a player. Just because they play a moralfag in your eyes doesn't mean they don't like morally ambiguous characters. They just don't play those characters because their own morals aren't ambiguous to them, they know what they are by fact of being themselves. Do you roleplay a morally ambigous character? How do you know when you're being ambiguous? When even you don't know if what you're doing is in line with the morals that you hold? Really the best you could hope to be is good, evil, possibly gray but more likely apathetic, or in the worst case scenario you're just arbitrary and really I think that's probably a lot worse than any of the other 3.
>>341935241
Because its usually more fun and most games reward that behavior
>>341940968
Wario games. You're not evil, but just want to steal the world's treasure for yourself.
>>341951123
If your own morality is, in your own eyes, 'ambiguous', you're probably a sociopath.
There's no ambiguity about that kid that tortures neighborhood pets to death and then buries them in the woods, even if he doesn't think what he's doing is good or evil. He's fucked in the head.
Right and wrong are right and wrong. Even if everyone's definition is different, the only people who think morality is 'ambiguous' are probably serial killers.
>play hoi4 with Italy
>fuck fascism Ill become democrat and join the allies.
>>341951635
>it's WW1 all over again
>>341935241
Evil choices are easy mode.
>>341935241
>play good
cuck who cant think for himself
>play evil
stupid 12 year old edgelord
>play with no particular intention
ascended golden god
>>341951493
The point is I don't think someone can be morally ambiguous from their own perspective, that's kind of judged from the outside. You're probably right that someone who sees themselves as morally ambiguous has a screw loose or is actually an edgelord, but that's not really what I was trying to get at.
And even though I didn't say it in my post, I think there are positions that are more complex than just good, evil, and gray, it gets judged differently by each person. For instance in a grand strategy game I might go around conquering others who never declared war on me, but perhaps they're a nuisance in another way by creating chaos on the frontiers or interrupting my trade indirectly, so I conquer them to bring stability. Is that good? I'd say so because war is being used an end to a longer peace, but others might not see it that way or it might not be clear to someone else so I'm seen as evil or morally ambiguous.
That's just my thought on it.
>>341951913
>no particular intention
That's kind of at odds with video games that generally have some goal and require action on the user's part. You've gotta have some intention or else why even play video games? Wandering aimlessly is still usually an end to seeking action or loot.
>>341935241
Because the majority of moral choices are in normie pandering games that make it so that the moral high road is not only easier, but heavily encouraged.
>>341935241
Good choices usually yield better rewards in the long run, but I do choose the evil path afterwards to see everything.
>>341952025
>>341951493
What the hell are you talking about, there are plethora of situations where somebody might be forced into or otherwise end up inclined towards making decisions they themselves recognize are in the grey area. They don't have to like it. Geralt for example, he actually hates moral ambiguity and the world he lives in but acknowledges he has no fucking choice so many times.
>>341935241
>self-reporting
You need to collect stats from instrumenting the game to track player choices.
>>341952835
I acknowledged gray, anon, but you're right in that someone might not want to make a particular choice but realizes it's the best given the situation. That doesn't make someone morally ambiguous, though, and if they choose the less optimal situation because it agrees with their morals it could just mean they don't have the same conflict others do. Could be a character playing a religious zealot that doesn't care if others of different faith are destroyed. In some ways that could still be an interesting character. Maybe not in the decision that they made but their backstory, or in the consequences that it has for them.
>>341935241
Its either because of self-insert or just a good hearted nature.
Personally if the game is taking itself seriously then I do the RP shit and play it how I would.
I just dont think its satisfying or funny to go on a random killing spree with daedric gear in whiterun, its just not my thing.
>>341940545
>projecting
Aww you mad now faggot? Given up after all that?
See how you act cuck? Learn your fucking place newfaggot.
Are there games where you can play as an evil character who pretends to be good? That way, you can get all the benefits a good character gets while secretly killing all the people you don't like.
Because evil in 99% of video games is killing puppies and all kinds of dumb shit. There's nothing engaging about that kind of decision making, so I just do the right thing because that's how I was raised.
