Good vs. Evil

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Anachronism:

Like it was mentioned in the closing comment of this article, a Star Wars game where you get to play a Grey Jedi would be brilliant, in my opinion: using whatever Force powers you like, and not having the game tell you you've fallen to the Dark Side because you like to use Lightning. What if you used it to fry a Sith Lord? Surely that would make you good, even though you used an "evil" power? Whether you're good or evil doesn't depend on what you do, but on why you do it.

But force lightning is unleashing your hate and anger to maim and kill your enemy in the most painful way imaginable. There really isn't a more "evil" power in all of Star Wars except maybe for the "Dark Side Life Suck" that a few of the big bads can do.

I see where your coming from, really, but Force Lightning is the worst example, considering it basically amounts to...

"I will now kill you with PURE EVIL ENERGY generated by my hate and rage!"

This was a very insightful article with an excellent idea for a game/story dynamic. I hope your column continues to meet the high bar you have set with this article.

As for what was said in the article it makes a lot of sense, especially the part about the four trait system. I think most developers are scared of going beyond the Good/Evil dichotomy because the amount of content increases logarithmically with each new trait. After all how would one tailor a mission to a player that was both selfish and peaceable? Also what would be the point of generating content that players would only see 1/4 of the time. Your solution to this makes a lot of sense. By restricting access to missions based on one attribute, you ensure a user sees at least 1/2 the content that was developed on their first play through, while still maintaining a greater illusion of agency.

You could further expand on the complexity by NPC's who are friendly, hostile or dead. For example in that posy/assassination mission you described, all your prior missions could contribute to how it plays out. If in the second act you were arresting/killing the posy's members, the sub climax mission would be easier to defend the innocent family. Where as if you had been letting the posy get away with terrorizing the family; the family would be severely weakened during the battle.

I hope some one takes this concept and runs with it. Such a game would dramatically expand the definition of what a video game is.

Kevvers:

Sewblon:
I agree with much of what you say, but you didn't solve all of the problems. What if you are in a burning building, see a small child trapped under a collapsed beam and have the option to either be selfish and exit the building immediately or be altruistic and save the child first, but if you save the child he grows up to be a serial killer or a terrorist. So being selfish was arguably the moral thing to do in that scenario. The biggest problem is, the designer is just a person, what gives him/her the authority to say what is right and what is wrong, a completely ambiguous story and world would interest me more.

Um.. OK I see what you're saying to an extent, BUT.. how the heck could you as the player possibly know that the kid would grow up into a serial killer. What kind've person would refuse to save the kid citing that 'he might grow up into a serial killer'. If a game ever pulled a stunt like that I'd be pretty unimpressed. I'm all for a degree of moral ambiguity, but please don't make me as a player feel guilty for rescuing trapped children from burning buildings.

It would probably only happen if I ever design a game. But if I do, it will happen with every moral situation.

PedroSteckecilo:
But force lightning is unleashing your hate and anger to maim and kill your enemy in the most painful way imaginable. There really isn't a more "evil" power in all of Star Wars except maybe for the "Dark Side Life Suck" that a few of the big bads can do.

I see where your coming from, really, but Force Lightning is the worst example, considering it basically amounts to...

"I will now kill you with PURE EVIL ENERGY generated by my hate and rage!"

I see your point, but I still argue that it can be used for good. Like the Dark Side as a whole, it's fuelled by the wielder's emotions. True, it is powered by hate and rage, but if that hate is directed against a Sith because of their previous actions towards you? If you hate someone evil, and use that hate to destroy them, does that make you good or evil?

I'd argue good, but it's obviously subjective. Lightning wasn't, admittedly, the best example, although Light Side characters have been known to use it: Kyle Katarn being the most prominent example, and I believe Luke used it as well. Something like Grip, however, although generally considered a Dark Side power, is definitely more ambiguous than Lightning. Again, it was used by Luke in RotJ; did using an evil power make him evil?

This sort of reinforces why I'd like to play a game where the protagonist is a Grey Jedi. It would leave whether he is good or evil much more open to the player, which would probably result in a great deal more moral ambiguity and blurring of the line between "good" and "bad", which has been far too clearly defined in gaming up till now.

Anachronism:

PedroSteckecilo:
SNIP

I see your point, but I still argue that it can be used for good. Like the Dark Side as a whole, it's fuelled by the wielder's emotions. True, it is powered by hate and rage, but if that hate is directed against a Sith because of their previous actions towards you? If you hate someone evil, and use that hate to destroy them, does that make you good or evil?

I'd argue good, but it's obviously subjective. Lightning wasn't, admittedly, the best example, although Light Side characters have been known to use it: Kyle Katarn being the most prominent example, and I believe Luke used it as well. Something like Grip, however, although generally considered a Dark Side power, is definitely more ambiguous than Lightning. Again, it was used by Luke in RotJ; did using an evil power make him evil?

The whole point of The Dark Side corrupting you is exactly that though...

Go ahead, use Force Lightning to kill the Sith Lord...

It's soooo eaaaasy...

And he totally deserves it right...

Yes, use that power, strike him down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

And the Luke/grip thing... using Grip to subdue is not evil, in fact one could argue that his use of force grip actually PREVENTED him having to kill them, hence making it a better thing to use. Grip hasn't been "evil" in canon for awhile, though killing someone with it still is, it's alot like strangling someone, it's just MEANER than shooting/slashing/stabbing them.

I think the key to the Luke-uses-evil-powers scenario is that it's a step on a path. The first few times he uses darkside Force powers, he'd have great reasons and justifications. But since those powers are so strong, the next time he's in a struggle he may turn to them right away because jeez, why not? Gradually, the swift use of deadly force becomes easier to use and to justify. One day he's the dictator of the galaxy.

This is one of the problems with the new prequel trilogy. Anakin makes sense as an impetuous, brash guy who finds the rules restricting who he loves a problem. When his mom is tortured by sandpeople and he flips out and kills them all, it's pretty understandable. The Sandpeople are consistently presented as "the other" -- you don't see sandpeople speeder mechanics knocking back a drink in the cantina with the humans. In his rage, his actions are understandable, if not necessarily justifiable.

Where I think the new movies went wrong (in this context) is how swiftly Anakin moves to murdering the Jedi kids. That's a really, really big step that I don't think is in any way reasonable for his character to take.

The KOTOR game seem more like Anakin and less like Luke. Which is a shame, because Luke has a much better story.

I should add that you could model the good/evil Force powers thing the way I described mission content and the traits. The more you used the powers of either light or dark side, the cheaper those powers would get and the more expensive their counterparts would. So as a player, I could make a lot more darkside attacks than lightside once I start moving down that path. Moving back to the lightside would be a real effort - you'd have fewer attacks, so the temptation would be really strong to stay on the darkside. But if you stick with it, eventually the darkside powers get expensive again and the lightside powers get cheap.

This general idea of taking the player's input and then using it to provide friction/no-friction gameplay in response is fun to play with.

To start, awesome. Love it.

With regards to the Act 3 reversals of course, in a western, I can imagine at least one pretty fantastic scripted reaction to your deciding to go from goody-two-shoes to evil-sidekick: as the sheriff, you have obviously fallen in love with and woo'd the school-marm/widowed-farmer's-wife/storeowner/hooker-with-a-golden-heart. After making your uber-evil reversal, there would be tears, and accusations of lies "just to get under my bustle". It would make no narrative sense to support multiple reversals though, so you'd probably want to build that into your mechanisms as a one-way-betrayal-of-trust.

On the subject of Star Wars, I'm going to go with Pedro and the author: using Anger for good intentions is just paving the path to hell in that universe.

Yeah, Anakin killing the kids, although hilarious, was way too big a leap from rebellious goodguy to supervillain.

Personally I'm a little turned off by the whole turn this discussion has taken towards games with Star Wars force powers designated as good and evil. Maybe because I think force powers are ridiculous. If Jedi need training to move gigantic objects with the force, how come the average non-Jedi person can't move little things with the force, like a can of beer?

PedroSteckecilo:
The whole point of The Dark Side corrupting you is exactly that though...

Go ahead, use Force Lightning to kill the Sith Lord...

It's soooo eaaaasy...

And he totally deserves it right...

Yes, use that power, strike him down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

And the Luke/grip thing... using Grip to subdue is not evil, in fact one could argue that his use of force grip actually PREVENTED him having to kill them, hence making it a better thing to use. Grip hasn't been "evil" in canon for awhile, though killing someone with it still is, it's alot like strangling someone, it's just MEANER than shooting/slashing/stabbing them.

This is where the moral ambiguity of being a Grey would come in, though. You're right about Dark Side powers corrupting you, but only if they're used frequently. It's up to you how you use those powers, and whether or not you choose to use the Dark powers.

If a Jedi wasn't powerful enough to take down his enemy by normal means, but thought he could use the Dark Side abilities sparingly, without falling to the Dark side, who's to say he shouldn't? Ok, he might fall eventually, but it's up to him whether he continues to use those powers, or recognises the risk they pose and stops. If Luke had used Lightning against the Emperor in order to defeat him, but had managed to stop himself from completely giving himself over to the power the Dark Side offers, he would remain Light, despite having used Dark powers.

I suppose the basis of my argument is that evil means can be used to achieve a good end, but there is still a considerable risk in doing so.

The whole point to Luke in the Star Wars movies was to show that there was no Light or Dark, just people who were both. The Jedi and Sith both are extreams, and Luke was there to show that someone can be neutral. He can use is hate and anger in a constructive means, showing that they are not inherantly good or evil. It's like using a bomb to clear out a building site for a new building or sinking a ship for a new reef. The demolishing of a building or sinking of a ship by themselves are thought to be bad, but they're for the greater good.

Anyway, onto the main topic: The story could be interesting but there is one problem. You could get stuck in the first act if you keep doing one mission to cancel out another. By doing something bad in one mission, you would basicaly render something good you did right before invalid, until you run out of missions.

bioVOLTAGE:
Anyway, onto the main topic: The story could be interesting but there is one problem. You could get stuck in the first act if you keep doing one mission to cancel out another. By doing something bad in one mission, you would basicaly render something good you did right before invalid, until you run out of missions.

While not covered in the original article (meaning I agree with the potential for the problem you point out), a solution I'd recommend is to have a second and third act with neutral possibilities. There are not an infinite number of 1-2 point missions, so eventually you'd run out, and the game would need to open up Act 2. Why not have the morally ambiguous path, where others react to you that way the author mentioned before, as a crazed psychopath with violent mood-swings.

Geoffrey42:
While not covered in the original article (meaning I agree with the potential for the problem you point out), a solution I'd recommend is to have a second and third act with neutral possibilities. There are not an infinite number of 1-2 point missions, so eventually you'd run out, and the game would need to open up Act 2. Why not have the morally ambiguous path, where others react to you that way the author mentioned before, as a crazed psychopath with violent mood-swings.

Someone who has crazy mood swings wouldn't go from rescuing children from a burning orphanage to burning down an orphanage in an attempt to kill all of the children inside, though.

Sigh.

The article accurately articulates the problem with games that give you a moral choice, and then in its proposed solution promptly falls into the exact same problem.

You can either /help/ the evil cattle baron, or you can work /against/ the evil cattle baron.

It doesn't matter that there are 4 traits that give those endings nuance, and that there's a sudden twist at the end is kind of a betrayal of...well everything the story would be about (unless you REALLY worked at setting it up, because for the most part assassins don't suddenly turn on their masters in the name of good, nor good people suddenly shit on their principles in the name of a power grab).

To truly have a game where one can make choices that have an impact on the result, you need to have a game that has more than two results. This might mean working with the Devil in certain cases, and it might mean standing up him in others, with that kind of uneasy tension in between, but there has to be benefits and costs to EACH path that are unique to them and worth having.

In that case, why not try this fascinating game known as life?
/snark

Really though; the technology and work that it would take to do such a thing might just be beyond what any reasonable group could accomplish in a lifetime.

Try the Witcher if you want serious moral dillemas and consequences

Smokescreen:
Sigh.

The article accurately articulates the problem with games that give you a moral choice, and then in its proposed solution promptly falls into the exact same problem.

You can either /help/ the evil cattle baron, or you can work /against/ the evil cattle baron.

It doesn't matter that there are 4 traits that give those endings nuance, and that there's a sudden twist at the end is kind of a betrayal of...well everything the story would be about (unless you REALLY worked at setting it up, because for the most part assassins don't suddenly turn on their masters in the name of good, nor good people suddenly shit on their principles in the name of a power grab).

To truly have a game where one can make choices that have an impact on the result, you need to have a game that has more than two results. This might mean working with the Devil in certain cases, and it might mean standing up him in others, with that kind of uneasy tension in between, but there has to be benefits and costs to EACH path that are unique to them and worth having.

In that case, why not try this fascinating game known as life?
/snark

Really though; the technology and work that it would take to do such a thing might just be beyond what any reasonable group could accomplish in a lifetime.

I agree with you, this article doesn't find a solution to this problem, all it does is disguise it into something else.

A while ago I made my own article about choices and good and evil in gaming.

If we want to give players a moral delima, and not have to reuse the whole Karma system where you're "Goody-two-shoes" or "Bastardly-Dastardly Evil dude" then we have to have choices where there is no good or bad choice.

Heavy Rain demonstrates this perfectly. When you enter the house, do you go in the front door, the back, do you break in a window, ring the doorbell? What about checking the fridge first, or hurry up and look at the cabinet, or take your time to observe everything? There are a bunch of choices in Heavy Rain, but none of them are "good" to do or "bad" to do. They're all choices and each have their own impact on the game.

(Assuming Heavy Rain does what it promises) That is how we should implement morality into gaming. Don't give us two or three choices, one "good", "bad", and "neutral". Give us a bunch of choices that seem to have no meaning but each have their own impact. It won't be easy, but who said it would be?

Great ideas John. How games with complicated stories should be made.

Perhaps when each decision comes into play the choices emerge above the character, and the world is temporarily greyed out, slowed. Now based on your alignment, you might be pulled towards one, I literally mean the cursor is pulled towards the decision, say a box imagining the outcome (the picnicers are massacred stylistically). If you want to wrestle with yourself, and fight your new self, that has to be done with the controller or mouse. Think trying to get up from a k.o in a boxing game. Later on in the game if you go evil, neutral or somewhat helpful choices are still there, but the purely good or most morally superior and uncontaminated goodness becomes completely unavailable, and the player can see this. Except at the end, final scene, where if the player chooses the non-psychopathic ending, the player is treated to a little scene of the character remembering all the evil he has done, all the mail not delivered, his sleeping on the job, letting a rapist go, people not helped from robbers or thieves, all the glassy eyes of the innocents left to die in puddles of their own blood as the sun set because the boss hinted not to be involved. Realising all this, the character has a brief traumatic moment, sets his jaw, and says no. Perhaps to the amusing laugh and condemnation of fellow criminal actors.

That is the type of game I would like to play.

Very good article with an interesting premises for a rpg-esque game. I was thinking during the read how only removing some choices in missions could make you lean more towards a path. Much like how your character build in the original fallouts restricted how intelligent your conversations where and how prone to violence you where. So in the beginning you could have all the choices, but the more you leaned towards a path the less chances you'd have to change your path. I agree that is more interesting with missions tailor made for your selfishness, vanity, rightousness etc., but it might be straining the studios budget too much to make them all.
Also agree with above posters, I'd love to play the sheriff-game. Why don't you pitch it?

Hmmm,
If I were to create a game like that in a simple program... would you allow it?
(e.g. Flash, when I get the hang of it...)

I read this, and I think of a game that got right what Bioshock got wrong. The game I'm talking about is almost exactly what this article was describing. There's an indie RPG called Geneforge from like, 2002, with a very similar concept to Bioshock.
In the game, (and it's sequels), there exist mysterious "canisters', glass cylinders filled with magic goo that rewrites your genetic code and gives you special abilities. (Remember, this was before Bioshock)
But while in Bioshock, it's a very clear choice; kill the Little Sisters and extract Adam, or let them live, and the two endings reflect this extreme dichtomy, in Geneforge the effect is much more subtle. The Canisters are invaluable in granting you abilities, your spells and creations (mutant monster party characters) almost all derive from them. But slowly, over the course of the game, you'll notice a change in your interactions with NPCs. Where before you were totally free to be either cruel or kind in your interactions, slowly your characters patience begins to erode with those he perceives as "lesser beings". You are quicker to anger, which gets you into fights you might otherwise avoid. other people who see you can tell that you've used the canisters, and it turns them against you, making them less likely to ally with you. And so it becomes a balancing act; how much power is worth it, and how much are you willing to trade for these wonderful abilities?
It's a much more natural and believable transformation that that offered by just about any game today, where the choices usually seem to be more like this.
And I haven't even touched on the regular choices you make in dialogue and such, because it's almost never clear who's good and whose bad, or even if anyone is really evil or just driven by their beliefs. It's never obvious which choice is "bad" or "good", because everyone has good reasons why they're right.
This is a template that game devs need to follow. Organic, believable characters, with foils and beliefs. A player shouldn't make a choice because he knows it will make him "good" or "evil", but rather because he believes in the path he's taking.

Schnippshly:
If Jedi need training to move gigantic objects with the force, how come the average non-Jedi person can't move little things with the force, like a can of beer?

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not."
image

An excellent editorial on what I believe to be a serious lacking in most games video. This is exactly what bothered me so much about KOTOR. While I loved the game, I felt the choices were so diametrically opposed that you really couldn't follow anything but a singular path: be it Light or Dark. And it's not even a true path. You can either be saint or a complete a$$hole. Where are the gray areas that a character would come up against?

Apparently the upcoming InFamous has a morality system to it. For example, during an airdrop of food & medicine, you can defend it and distribute it to the starving people. . . or you can take it for yourself and give it to your friends, one of who is quite ill and needs it badly. That is a clear morality play... save complete strangers or the people you love. How the game play is actually affected by your choices, I'm not sure... but I'm keeping my fingers crossed for something beyond the Good vs Evil scale that dominate games these days.

I would like to see a game with (lets say 3 prudence comparison & justice) virtues (and maybe something else independent of the virtues. Maybe flaws or outlooks) so you have to pick your right answer, not the games.
EDIT: I have high hopes for this series.

I've discussed this issue with my threads a whole lot. I really liked this article. I think the most important problem about good/evil gameplay you touched on, and that was the idea of a magnetic path. It always bothered me that say, in KOTOR, I could play as the killingest dickwad in the world, but right before the end still have the option to make the "good" choice. When you make certain choices, your access to certain avenues need to be cut-off.

What a great read.

I don't think your approach is functional.

You detailed a problem - proposed styles - and fell right back into the old Mother Teresa Eats Babies problem.

I find myself often annoyed I can't lie for a good cause in RPG games. And those scales are just silly.

How about scales that balance each other out and don't have an ethical judgment attached?

Vicious versus Duplicitous.
Manipulative versus Cruel.
Selfish versus Judgmental.

Essentially, bad things balanced out by bad things.

Jumplion wrote:

----
If we want to give players a moral delima, and not have to reuse the whole Karma system where you're "Goody-two-shoes" or "Bastardly-Dastardly Evil dude" then we have to have choices where there is no good or bad choice.

Heavy Rain demonstrates this perfectly. When you enter the house, do you go in the front door, the back, do you break in a window, ring the doorbell? What about checking the fridge first, or hurry up and look at the cabinet, or take your time to observe everything? There are a bunch of choices in Heavy Rain, but none of them are "good" to do or "bad" to do. They're all choices and each have their own impact on the game.
----

I'm confused by this because the Heavy Rain example isn't at all to do with moral dilemmas. Those choices are procedural decisions in investigating a situation but they don't play into a moral dilemma. I do definitely agree with the desire for more than a simple good/bad choice, and I think the example I cited from Grand Theft Auto IV is a great example of that. Both of the drug dealers are murderous scum, so it's not really a good vs. evil decision. You are, by conventional morality, already an evil person. The question is whether you are an evil person who can be relied on by his friends or whether you are an evil person who has no friends because he'll betray anyone. That's a lot more interesting than what we've seen in KOTOR.

Smokescreen wrote:

---
To truly have a game where one can make choices that have an impact on the result, you need to have a game that has more than two results. This might mean working with the Devil in certain cases, and it might mean standing up him in others, with that kind of uneasy tension in between, but there has to be benefits and costs to EACH path that are unique to them and worth having.
---

To some degree, I agree. But I would also argue that my goal is not to provide a blank canvas upon which you work your will. My goal is to provide a specific narrative within which your character can act in ways that feel credible and suspend disbelief in terms of emotions and morality. In most good narratives a strong character should make a strong choice and reach a strong conclusion. Given the premise I set forth, I don't think ending the story with a "lingering tension" conclusion (for example) would be a satisfying ending. I agree more ending options are attractive in theory, but in practice the genre you're working in also has certain expectations and in a western, as in most action/adventure genres, the main character should end up in a pretty definitive circumstance with the major conflict resolved.

The more endings you create, the more likely you are to have weaker endings in which the main character makes less definitive choices.

insanelich wrote:

---
How about scales that balance each other out and don't have an ethical judgment attached?

Vicious versus Duplicitous.
Manipulative versus Cruel.
Selfish versus Judgmental.
---

Those don't feel like scales to me. There's no way in which being vicious is opposed to being duplicitous, for example. One person could easily be all of the above: vicious, duplicitous, manipulative, cruel, selfish, and judgmental.

I definitely agree with wanting to include examples like lying for a good cause. That's much more of a moral dilemma than most of what we see in these games.

(Hmm, maybe I should start using the quote function!)

The_Amaster:
But while in Bioshock, it's a very clear choice; kill the Little Sisters and extract Adam, or let them live, and the two endings reflect this extreme dichtomy, in Geneforge the effect is much more subtle. The Canisters are invaluable in granting you abilities, your spells and creations (mutant monster party characters) almost all derive from them. But slowly, over the course of the game, you'll notice a change in your interactions with NPCs. Where before you were totally free to be either cruel or kind in your interactions, slowly your characters patience begins to erode with those he perceives as "lesser beings". You are quicker to anger, which gets you into fights you might otherwise avoid. other people who see you can tell that you've used the canisters, and it turns them against you, making them less likely to ally with you. And so it becomes a balancing act; how much power is worth it, and how much are you willing to trade for these wonderful abilities?

That sounds fascinating. Can you undo some of what you've done? If it's irrevocable that would be a bummer, since I could get myself to a point where I'm a jerk before I really understand what's going on.

I would play said game. I want a Cowboy game like that.

*sigh*

Hard questions you both fail to comprehend and fail to answer, falling right back onto the same old behavior you criticize but for worse reasons.

Complex morality is interesting because it's complex, and a devilish evil side, a saintly good side and a Mother Teresa eats babies neutral side with a completely predictable "twist" for a 180 degree turn does not complex make.

Just want to say, i really would prefer that system, i'm sick of RPGs and similar that only let you choose between giving all your money to someone who's dropped their ice cream, or to club baby seals.... And with this system we could, perhaps, finally work out some way to come up with a neutral ending, rather than more of the above

You know the main problem? At the end of the day, you still want to simplify the game down to two endings: Work with the Baron or work against the Baron. And you make the Baron the "evil" side apparently.

I know you want a complex morality system, but I argue for a complex FACTION system instead. Instead of having 4 different traits, have your relationships with certain Factions go up and down. So:

---Baron Villian
---Thomas Bartender
---Priest Buffalo
---Joe Trader
---Jim Banker

Etc. And each of these people hand you missions. Completing these missions will increase your relationship with one of the guys, having you unlock more missions from that guy. But it will likely also offend another Faction. Angry factions will respond to you rather negatively. In the end, if you make that faction too angry, they'll refuse to talk to you and will instead send their goons to attack you.

For example, say Joe Trader gives you a mission to shut down some of Baron Villian's henchmen. Pulling that off makes Baron Villian upset and cut off all contact with you and send off his goons to hamper you. You can then petition for Baron Villian to stop attacking you and give you more missions, and Baron Villian will want you to "prove" your new-founded loyalty by having you attack Joe Trader, offending Joe Trader. But, of course, to prevent people from switching sides on a whim, it should be hard to get in the good graces of a person who hates your guts.

At the end of the game, the tensions between the various factions explode, with at least some factions wanting to remove the sheriff in question, and a civil war is going to occur with the "Pro-Sheriff" factions fighting against the Anti-Sheriff factions. So, if Baron Villian loves you, you'll end up working on the same side as him. If Baron Villian hates you, you have to fight him. Same with all the other factions. If, at the end of the civil war, you still survive, you...um...er...win! Good luck cleaning up the bloodstains.

If you somehow make all the factions like you, you get a "YOU WIN!" screen and prevent said civil war (this may very well be the conventional "good" ending, where bloodshed is avoided). Alternatively, if ALL the factions hate you, get ready to inflict bloody massacre onto the entire Town that will make Baron Villian look...well...like a Hero (hence, the conventional "bad" ending).

Make this game. Now.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here