Does anyone else here vocally object when a game forces you to do "the right thing" against your will? It's only really a problem in games where choice/the illusion of choice is a centerpiece to the whole affair, but my god is it annoying.

I'd gladly use Mass Effect 3 as my example here, but to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of a few whiny prigs, let's go with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Considering the title of this thread, you can probably guess I went the transhuman/augment aficionado route and gave the concept of "purity" the middle finger with both hands the whole way through. But despite this, there were still multiple instances in the game wherein an arbitrary and unforeshadowed sense of heroism seemed to surge forth from Adam Jensen. Like say when I sat through Tai-Yong's song and dance and let her feel me up as opposed to breaking both her legs with my augs and dragging her back to Sarif industries in a suitcase. Orrr when the game decided to make William Taggart immortal following that press conference in which I publicly shamed him. Or when the game decided automatically that I'd wanna talk Taggart's lackey into not killing himself. And here's an example of something that *wasn't* in the game that should've been: an option to violently and spectacularly murder Hugh Darrow after he's done throwing his temper tantrum (yes, you can just blow his head off but that's hardly satisfying).

Why do I want all of these options so much? Well it's simple: Deus Ex was a game that let me throw my weight around. It made me *feel* like a superhuman force that was more or less just above society's rules and laws. I remember spending my downtime in game mugging cops and taking their guns for fun, and crushing gangsters with the business end of a dumpster for mouthing off. Point is, my Adam Jensen was most definitely not a selfless hero, nor did he pretend to be. So what's with the clause that makes him an automatically good, selfless and trusting person when the chips are down?

I'll explain it the way one of my favorite DM's did back in the day: there's the bad guys, and there's the antagonists. You don't have to be nice to be the hero of a story. So if you're gonna give me the option of doing things rough, don't muzzle me at X/Y point arbitrarily.

*Let* me throw Hugh Darrow through a plate glass window and listen to him scream on the way down to meet his monster. *Let* me say: "So? Do it." when a side character I have no connection to puts a gun to his head. And *let* me be a skeptical and violent asshole when dealing with people of suspect character.

And this is one that all games just plain need: a "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" button. Y'know how ME had interrupts for especially noble/efficient actions? Well there needs to be a "SHUT UP!" clause for when characters are being forced to sit through dialogue that they're not interested in hearing. Let's take The Witcher 2 as our example here. Sayyy, when some ditzy merchant starts asking you random non-sequitors about your life? Give me an option to cut them off mid sentence and say somethin' like:

"Listen carefully, I don't care about you or anything you think about. Now shut up and take my coin before I get mad."

Rude? Absolutely. But this is a *game*, I should be allowed to be rude in this context when I damn well please. Having to sit through boring conversations for the sake of courtesy is a burden I have to shoulder in the real world, I shouldn't have to do it in games too. And yes, you can "skip" dialogue if you want, but time warping through a conversation kills any latent sense of immersion you had in what was going on instantly. I'd *much* rather be able to tell annoying/long winded/etc. people to go fuck a cactus. Significantly more satisfying, and it has a role playing benefit.

Agreed, though so few can write a good villain story, they might as well not bother. Even Overlord had to face an eviler force. The key to this sort of plot is having a personal antagonist and most games are a save the world deal.

But hey, if you want a cool game where you're the evil one, try Deception (In the first one, you're trying to resurrect Satan)

Zhukov:
Uh... DE:HR gave you loads of opportunities to be a dick.

You can allow Sanderval to commit suicide. You can murder Taggart. You can give Darrow the fist chisels of doom treatment.

The thing with "Tai-Yong" (was that really her name?) wasn't so much a case of heroism as it was old fashioned protagonist cutscene stupidity.

Take note of the vocabulary you just used. "Allow" him to commit suicide? I don't want to not prevent it, I want to encourage it. Hell, I wanna take the gun out of his hands and shoot him twice in the gut so he bleeds out in his bunker.

And I noted you can kill the guy, but its an afterthought. It's obviously not something you're expected to do or given any incentive to do, it's just something you can do. Killing him is exactly the same thing as killing 1 of the random mooks you find on the station. Not good enough.

Also cutscene stupidity is not something you should ever try and justify. Ever.

*SPOILERS* maybe?

I do agree, we should have more of a choice in games...but also, they are video games. Different choices take some time and effort to make. Even more, if you want them to be well executed. And in the end, the plot is limiting. The devs simply cannot put all the possible options, choices and consequences in there. Doing so would amount to making more than one game, so a certain inflexibility is to be expected.

With that said, certain choices and consequences can be added. It has been proven to work. And the plot could still be left mostly intact.

You know what's funny? I'm not a fan of villains or selfish bad-ass protagonists in games, yet I agree 100% with this guy.

If a game is going to allow you to be a bad guy, then the scripting and the little things in dialogue and actions should definitely reflect that.

I don't think every game has to have an "evil" option shoehorned in if the game doesn't take that option anywhere interesting. That said, have you tried Paradox Interactive games? From what I've played of Crusader Kings 2 (which is to say that I'm about 1/4 through the tutorial - that's a crazy in-depth game) you can definitely play it as a medieval bastard simulator. Sure, it's more of a machiavellian sort of evil than a belligerent asshole sort of evil, but that's more interesting anyway.

Well for starters, no sandbox game is truly a sandbox. They've all got pre-written stories that, one way or another, follow the Good Guys vs Bad Guys format. Quite simply: they don't want a game where the bad guys win. I'm not saying I've played every game out there, but personally I liked Knights of the Old Republic because you actually had the genuine choice of "I'm gonna be a Sith, Mother-Fuck the god damn Republic, I'm gonna take over this bitch!" And sure enough you can kill your treacherous apprentice, reclaim the Star Forge, and realize your dark ambitions once and for all!

The point is that KotOR is perhaps the only game that I, personally, can think of that has a genuine "The Bad Guys Win" possibility for an ending. But see KotOR actually had a good reason/story that allowed for it to have a Bag Guys Win ending. KotOR's story progressed with you assuming you're a good (or at least neutral) guy at the start of the game, or at least there's room for conflict because the bad guys (Malak's forces) are trying to kill you. So you progress through the game and don't officially find out that you're really some ultra badass who used to be pretty damn evil. From there you're given the choice of renouncing your evil ways and becoming the shining beacon of hope and justice the Jedi's always hoped you would become...or you can choose to reclaim your dark mantle of Lord of the Sith, strike down your treacherous apprentice, and take back your empire.

With today's games, you're not given such a choice to return to a past of darkness. The game puts you in the situation of a hero and your only choice is really "Are you a true hero? Or are you an anti-hero?"

For instance, I finally got done with my Full Renegade playthrough of ME 3...annnnnnd yeah, ReneShep gets the job done just as well as ParaShep, the only real difference is that ReneShep is just the most backstabbing son-of-a-bitch in the entire galaxy. Between Mordin, Wrex, and having to put Legion down like he's Ol' Space Yeller ("HOW IS THAT A THING?!" :P) ReneShep proves that there's no one he won't throw under the bus and utterly betray as long as it suits his purpose. ParaShep proves that she'll bend over backwards to make and spread peace to serve her purpose. The thing is both of them have the same purpose: defeat the Reapers. ReneShep isn't trying to defeat the Reapers so that HE can control the galaxy (like Darth Revan wants to defeat Malak so that HE can control the Sith), he's just not afraid to make any sacrifice necessary to win.

In short: games that have a morality system don't really let you choose between being a bad guy or being a good guy, they're choosing "Do you want to be a nice guy on your way to achieve your goals? Or do you want to be a fucking asshole?"

I'd say the Bioshock games, though, make an admirable attempt at having Good Guy/Bad Guy endings. BS 1: Leave Rapture vs Take It Over and Become Splicer King. BS 2: Free a benevolent super powered girl who will help mankind progress to the future vs Unleash a malevolent bitch who cannot wait to to exercise her "daddy's" bloody wrath upon society.

Annnnnnnnd I'm officially starting to ramble so I'll kindly shut the fuck up now. :P

Been playing Crusader Kings II. I have literally spent hours murdering children so that my ruler's son could inherit countries. This includes killing his own children so the right one inherits everything. Yeah, that game encourages being a right cunt.

Star wars the old republic and the Kotor series go out of their way to allow you to do bad things for the sake of seeing people suffer

Dendio:
Star wars the old republic and the Kotor series go out of their way to allow you to do bad things for the sake of being seeing people suffer

That kind of misses the point... its not about arbitrary sadism, it's about letting me actually act like a jerk consistently if I want to. Whether it's vengeful jerkdom, spiteful jerkdom, w.e.

Emiscary:
snip

eh i think you missed the point of the game. Jensen is just like shepard in mass effect, he is set to "hero mode" whatever happens. It just depends if you want to walk on water or bend the rules a little.

The choice in deus ex is not really from the story too much, but more on how you upgrade yourself. Even Denton in the first game acted a certain way to move the plot forward.

Having a true "good" and "evil" side to the game is a big ask. Its almost like creating two games in one.

Still think bards tale had the best choice to the endings. It had the "fuck it i'm going home" choice :P

I hear you, I usually like to do two playthroughs on games like that so I can be good and a jerk and even when you do get the option to be a jerk, you lose out on some things. For example, you could help that guy out, get that rare item only he has as a reward and a bunch of other goodies you find while doing the quest or you can tell him to go to hell and get maybe the cash on his body.

I would also like the option of forcing the issue with less than helpful npcs.
Me: "I need that item, information, weapon, armor."
Them: "Ok, I just need you to get something for me, kill someone for me, pay me exorbitant amounts of cash"
Me: "How about I don't kill you and we call it even?"

Emiscary:

Zhukov:
Uh... DE:HR gave you loads of opportunities to be a dick.

You can allow Sanderval to commit suicide. You can murder Taggart. You can give Darrow the fist chisels of doom treatment.

The thing with "Tai-Yong" (was that really her name?) wasn't so much a case of heroism as it was old fashioned protagonist cutscene stupidity.

Take note of the vocabulary you just used. "Allow" him to commit suicide? I don't want to not prevent it, I want to encourage it. Hell, I wanna take the gun out of his hands and shoot him twice in the gut so he bleeds out in his bunker.

And I noted you can kill the guy, but its an afterthought. It's obviously not something you're expected to do or given any incentive to do, it's just something you can do. Killing him is exactly the same thing as killing 1 of the random mooks you find on the station. Not good enough.

Also cutscene stupidity is not something you should ever try and justify. Ever.

With Sandoval, if you decide to blaze guns through most of the game, there is a new cutscene in which you violently get the same info AND get to kill him afterwards.

Emiscary:
-snip

Oh sweet God yes. While I dont think it would work with a game in which you have a very defined character (like DE:HR), a game where your character is your character, this would be awesome.

Zhukov:

Emiscary:

Zhukov:
Uh... DE:HR gave you loads of opportunities to be a dick.

You can allow Sanderval to commit suicide. You can murder Taggart. You can give Darrow the fist chisels of doom treatment.

The thing with "Tai-Yong" (was that really her name?) wasn't so much a case of heroism as it was old fashioned protagonist cutscene stupidity.

Take note of the vocabulary you just used. "Allow" him to commit suicide? I don't want to not prevent it, I want to encourage it. Hell, I wanna take the gun out of his hands and shoot him twice in the gut so bleeds out in his bunker.

And I noted you can kill the guy, but its an afterthought. It's obviously not something you're expected to do or given any incentive to do, it's just something you can do. Killing him is exactly the same thing as killing 1 of the random mooks you find on the station. Not good enough.

Also cutscene stupidity is not something you should ever try and justify. Ever.

Eh, I guess.

I can't say I would fault a game for not meticulously catering to my every juvenile sadistic fantasy, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Also, I wasn't justifying the cutscene stupidity, just pointing it out. I thought it was pretty ridiculous. I mean, really Adam? Turning your back on her? Really?!

I seem to remember a subtle implication that she used a CASIE mod.

OT: None of the 'rail-road' points you described would really lead me to describe Jensen as behaving righteously; just not maniacally for no reason at all times. The only thing where I thought they were too restrictive was with Sandoval (and the boss fights, obviously), because it did make sense that you'd at least be able to tell him to go fuck himself.

The point of Jensen is that you can explore personality sides of someone who is still convincingly the same character no matter what you say. Obviously that throws up some inherent disconnects, ones which should be ironed out, but for the most part I thought it was handled very well.

Boyninja616:

Totally forgot about this actually.

Yeah, Red Dead Redemption was the same way. It "allowed" you to play as a prick, but every story mission in the game portrayed you more as a flawed and misunderstood hero. It's hard for that to translate if you spend the game stealing horses, shooting random people, and generally being a jerk. There was no benefit to playing as an ass either. It would just add up the bounty. I guess the argument would be that the freedom to do whatever you want gave the game a sense of openness (and role playing), but it would have been nice if they had included some sort of reality where you weren't a good guy.

From a tabletop gaming perspective, the kind of player you are describing is the kind I dislike the most, because it is incredibly hard to tell a good story when all the player wants to do is flex his badass muscles at every opportunity he gets. Solving every problem that comes your way by hitting something with your fist or shouting really loudly might be fun for you, but it makes for a really boring story. In a video game it is even worse, since creating a vast and adaptable story requires significant effort and resources to create, and without limitations the player could very well break the story (Like Morrowind).

Not to say that playing the anti-hero is entirely a bad thing, only there are limits to the level of choice a game designer can allow while still delivering a good story.

I absolutely agree with you. Games often makes us to be "good", "good boys", and even we have the opportunity to be bad, there is always the option to be good in your second playthrough, essentially voiding the meaning of your first approach, and making the whole thing feel like two compulsory playthroughs in order to unlock all of the achievements...
Cheap and sad.

Having a main character that is that flexible in personality is really hard to write for, it works in D&D because the story or at least the detail of it get written as you play but a video game has to have every detail planned, written, animated, and programed beforehand, that's a lot of work. Also it's impossible to plan for every type of personality a person can pick. It would work a lot better in a game that is made for the character to always be a jerk, in which case you have God of War.

I agree with you in part. Games like Mass Effect, or DE:HR that are all about decisions shouldn't railroad you very often, though due to the limited space on disks, and the limited amount of time allowable for writing these games, it will still happen. We kind of have to accept that sometimes.

That said, the wall of text rant was a bit much. This isn't the US Senate floor. The title of the thread is also needlessly provocative.

I like being able to take my character to whatever extreme I chose. I agree with what Yahtzee says about moral choice systems but I wish all role-playing games had one like ME2. Renegade and Paragon options don't cancel each other out, you build a reputation based on EACH choice you make, not your overall tendencies. It's just sad that there are so many ways to be a complete ponce that games rarely cater for. Sure I'd like to collect money to save the orphanage, but that doesn't mean I don't want to get it by joining a fight club or beating prostitutes to death tire-irons and looting their corpses.

I liked how in fallout (1) you were never forced to be the dood guy. Hell you, could even join the enemy and betray your vault if you wanted.

I remember on a few occassions I refused to do something in DA2 and I couldn't get out of the conversation unless I accepted. I didn't like that at all. I can't think of any examples as it's been a long time since I played it, though.

Does anyone else here vocally object when a game forces you to do "the right thing" against your will?

Only when I disagree with what they conceive as right. For example, Fallout 3 docks my Karma when I kill the Overseer. Fuck that, he was a dictator! All fo a sudden Bethesda thinks it gets to make moral assemsments of my socio-political ideology. What the fuck.

Honestly, I prefer a hero/antihero dichotomy over a hero/villain one.

If you look at a lot of 'evil' options in most games, they mostly just boil down to being an asshole for no reason. KOTOR was pretty bad in that respect up until the end, as well as a lot of games based of of DnD like Neverwinter nights.

I don't mind having options to be a douchbag but most sane people wouldn't go kicking pregnant women in the face if they didn't actually stand to benefit from it in some way.

At least the antihero has the excuse of "the ends justify the means".

I'm not only sick of the whole "good" choices but also the "evil" choices. Why must games be so black & white? If they don't make it painfully obvious which choice is which they'll flat out tell you. I'd at least like a game where being "good" gets you brutally punished, because the "good" path should always be the hardest since you're playing by the rules and any of the "evil" alignment could just ignore those rules and step all over you. Fallout: New Vegas did a fairly good job at keeping choices fairly ambiguous.

I remember way back when I tried to play as a evil charictar in Baldur's Gate, I get that I have to save the world or whatever because that was the games storyline. Unfortunitely your "evil" choices come down to a) Be a snide prick and miss out on quests because it pissed off a few NPCs or b) Extort money. In a few places you could sympithise with the less morally sound faction, but if my charictar is chaotic evil I expect to be able to atleast do something evil that makes a difference, I could go murder a few NPCs, that would be evil. It would also be pointless.

I propose that games should have a sepperate storyline or atleast subplot for my evil choices. At the moment it comes down to this world is mine only I get to be evil here so i'll just pretend to be a bad mannered good guy for a while.

GobbieGoldchain:
You know what's funny? I'm not a fan of villains or selfish bad-ass protagonists in games, yet I agree 100% with this guy.

If a game is going to allow you to be a bad guy, then the scripting and the little things in dialogue and actions should definitely reflect that.

I agree, I rarely play a bad guy but I want to have to avoid playing the bad guy, as opposed to it barely being there to begin with.

I hate it when the choices are "good" and "hilariously retarded evil."

There was a zero punctuation that addressed this, though I forget which one. Fallout 3 was a major offender.

"Do you want to give this poor guy some water, or kick old ladies off a cliff onto sharpened pikes in full view of a police officer?"

I should be allowed to be evil without fucking myself over. There needs to be some *benefit* to it. If being evil makes it easier to survive a situation, then there's an incentive to be evil. If a character is annoying, there's an opportunity for severely disproportionate retribution. These are evil things the player WANTS to do, and thus they have to weigh the morality of their character against the incentives to do evil.

In both Fallout 3 and FNV I tried to make an evil character, and they failed because the seriously evil options were all just plain retarded. A true evil character should be able to be a backstabbing dick without having to carry around a dead baby on a pike just to show everyone he meets how evil he is.

The Mass Effect games, while slightly less cartoonishly evil, have similar problems. A lot of the time, picking "renegade" is just trying to piss people off. When I tried to be a renegade I often found myself getting paragon points anyways because the renegade options made no sense. "Press renegade to run up to the guy who's help you need and slap him in the face with your dick."

That doesn't help me, game. Give me options that help me.