Go watch. If you don't want to, just wait a bit for it to load and skip to the dialogue with the man in the suit. Star watching at about 2:00.
No, seriously. Go look at it.
If you did, let me give my thoughts regarding it:
Bethesda's story and background writing department needs to be taken into a philosophy class about morality.
I mean it. Because whatever the fuck they are smoking cannot be anything that is known to medicine. It cannot be anything known is any bothany or even terrastrial. There cannot be anything so strong that remains Earthly.
Seriously, I need to know what the fuck the writers were smoking so I can find it, excorcise it, burn it in holy fire and luanch it into the sun.
What. The. Fuck. Was. That.
I may be reading too much into things, but I am very certain of a few things regarding it and I am sure that almost anyone who even liked Fallout can agree with me. First, it was about you in a post-apocaliptic world and how you deal with it. It was about you, your survival and your prime goal.
It wasn't a black and white world either: if you were careless enough, you might have done something wrong because you didn't ask around enough or weren't paying enough attention. You could have pitched in to things with a merchenary attitude or with the good of your heart. Or just say that's sad and call it not your problem.
I am not a big Fallout fan. I didn't even finish either game and I hate turn-based combat. I was more confused then impressed with the game.
In fact, many VG development studios should get their story writers thrown in with Bethesda.
Why?
Beca being evil, isn't always about watching the world burn. It's about ignoring the suffering of others for your own gain. Or it could be willingness to commit horrible crimes in order to get something. It can be about taking adventage of people. It can be losing faith. It can be about pure selfishness. It can be about relentlesly persuing a slippery slope of bad emotions and abandoning your conciousness. It can be about chosing to be petty without end.
What is being evil about is debetable. However, despite what saturday morning cartoons may say, IT IS NOT ABOUT BEING DROP-DEAD RETARDED.
Let me repeat that for the sake of the kiddies: BEING EVIL DOES NOT EQUAL BEING STUPID!
This isn't just F3 here; it almost seems that VG writers cannot comprahend grey areas. It's like, they try and try hard, but they can't just seem to grasp the idea of having a moral dilemma.
Blowing up a nuclear bomb for a little money is the definition of stupid. Those things kill everyone, regardless of morality. Even if you were evil, you wouldn't do it, because you are unlikely to get out in time. Even if you were,
It is the very clear picture of what is wrong with some of the pseudo-choices in video games: you are always given a clear-cut moral issue, no matter how ambigiously or grey they try to colour it. Perhaps they can't afford to make a million-dollar game remotely contraversial, perhaps they just don't have the imagination, but shit, can we at least not use saturday morning cartoon villains?
Am I the only one looking at this with these thoughts?
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Well they didn't show if there's a way to give the detonator to the sherriff and get Burke arrested, which knowing them there probably is. As far as the writing for the first two fallouts it was some of the best in video game history imo, especially considering their time periods. I think you're judging the game from about 2 minutes of video, which isn't a great thing to do.
Old as time. It's nearly impossible to do a Good v Evil sort of dialogue that allows the player to follow the same general trajectory either way, so they end up making good the "go along with the story and try your best" option and evil the "just go with what's easier and flip out and kill everyone" option.
Plus, everyone's definition of what's the most evil thing tends to differ a lot. The easiest one in game terms is violence--people understand the verbally abusive, gun-to-the-head option is generally the evil one. The only way to really treat the issue of good and evil properly in a game would be to design a long-running plot element or story arc that let you track your decisions over time and see the longer-term results. You basically need to design the game around that plotline. That works well as an element of storyline in something like the Soul Reaver/Legacy of Kain dual series of games. Or as part of the moral background of your decisions, like in Shadow of the Colossus, where you don't get a choice but you certainly can sit there and wonder what the consequences are.
I'd say that the thing with Megaton is actually a lot better than most because of the element of consequences. While it might be trite, there's a lot of games out there where your decisons are one-offs and you never have to deal with anything except some flavor text. Here, at least, it has a big impact. It's not handled well, but I can hardly muster any outrage when this is still a step up.
Covenant wrote:Old as time. It's nearly impossible to do a Good v Evil sort of dialogue that allows the player to follow the same general trajectory either way, so they end up making good the "go along with the story and try your best" option and evil the "just go with what's easier and flip out and kill everyone" option.
A lot of RPGs managed that, for example the Baldur's Gate saga. Also, KOTOR I is another example.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
*shrug* Having the rather sorrowful position of having not played the original games, I can't really say it looks that bad.
It was one choice, for one quest, from one guy, hardly basis for saying everything in the game is moustache-twirling and damse-to-railroad-track-tying on the 'evil' path.
Beca being evil, isn't always about watching the world burn. It's about ignoring the suffering of others for your own gain. Or it could be willingness to commit horrible crimes in order to get something. It can be about taking adventage of people. It can be losing faith. It can be about pure selfishness. It can be about relentlesly persuing a slippery slope of bad emotions and abandoning your conciousness. It can be about chosing to be petty without end.
So... How does Burke's "associates" being willing to Nuke a town for their master plan not fit with the bolded?
True, I'm sure we're all looking at this scenario like "There's no way Burke doesn't mean to double cross us on this," but we've not even seen how it goes down if we do choose to set up the Megaton bomb...
That said, even though I have it preordered, I'm reluctant to be optimistic about ANY game. We'll just see how it goes when it gets here. No matter what, someone'll be vindicated.
Rule one of Existance: Never, under any circumstances, underestimate stupidity. As it will still find ways to surprise you.
Burke promises you a lot of money for the destruction of the town. If you're an evil fuck, you agree.
If course, it would be pretty cool if you got ambushed at the Tenpenny Towers, the town got wiped out, then people would start hunting you etc.
But I don't see how taking the quest makes your character retarded.
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small. - NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11
Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.
MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
Block wrote:Well they didn't show if there's a way to give the detonator to the sherriff and get Burke arrested, which knowing them there probably is. As far as the writing for the first two fallouts it was some of the best in video game history imo, especially considering their time periods. I think you're judging the game from about 2 minutes of video, which isn't a great thing to do.
Except when you do tell the sheriff of Burke's plans he arrests him but when the sherrif turns his back for a second, Burke takes out a gun and kill him then tells you to finish the job of nuking the town.
ASVS('97)/SDN('03)
"Whilst human alchemists refer to the combustion triangle, some of their orcish counterparts see it as more of a hexagon: heat, fuel, air, laughter, screaming, fun." Dawn of the Dragons
So... How does Burke's "associates" being willing to Nuke a town for their master plan not fit with the bolded?
Burke didn't want the town blown because of a master plan: he wanted it gone because he didn't like it.
If the location was part of some master plan, then blowing up the bomb will make it extremely hazardous.
Being evil isn't about lacking sanity. There is no sane reason to blow up the bomb. Even if you are paid to do so.
The easiest one in game terms is violence--people understand the verbally abusive, gun-to-the-head option is generally the evil one.
If you are uncreative and aim the game for the mentally challenged, yeah it is. Otherwise, like somewhat in real life, you have to risk of choosing the wrong side in order to do what you think of as the right thing to do.
Except when you do tell the sheriff of Burke's plans he arrests him but when the sherrif turns his back for a second, Burke takes out a gun and kill him then tells you to finish the job of nuking the town.
And another level of stupidity: if he has no problem of killing the sheriff, why doesn't HE do the damn thing?
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
I don't see the problem, here. Ruthless business interests willing to mass murder to realize their plans, and a craven representative who would rather have someone else do the dirty work. Sounds like something you might have easily seen in the first two Fallouts to me.
"I'm so fast that last night I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Muhammad Ali
"Dating is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a heart-pounding, stomach-wrenching, gut-churning exercise in pitting your fear of rejection and public humiliation against your desire to find a mate. Enjoy." - Darth Wong
I'm still trying to figure out what's got people so angry at this. Even non NMA guys were gnashing their teeth when they saw the first game play demonstrations at E3. What is it about this game that just makes people go crazy with their ideas of "how it should be"? Is this Sauron's game or something? One disk to rule them all?
Oh, I see everyone is jumping on the "lol RPG evil/good decisions suck" bandwagon these days. Welcome to 3 years ago, dudes. Why weren't you bitching when KOTOR was out and doing the exact same bullshit? How about Bioshock?
I've taken to keeping a good policy for something like this..wait and see how the game is when it's on my desk. Judging how the game will take morality based on a small video probably isn't the greatest idea ever. I'm remaining cautiously optimistic about Fallout 3 based on the video link above, just from what they seem to be doing with the UI, the graphics and the voice overs.
So long as each option makes sense..
*shrug*
Xcom ; Standing proud and getting horrifically murdered by Chryssalids since 1994
Want to know what a superior system might be? Have your options influenced by your in-game alignment. The more evil you are, the more subtle and diabolical your choices become. The more good you are the less and less self-centered they are. Thus, you'll have a chance to graduate from petty evil to real evil over the course of the game.
Really, what you need are four alignments. Good, Evil, Neutral, and Violent Stupid. This would help encompass all the kinds of choices people make in a game, because honestly, does anyone ever choose those odd middle-of-the-road responses anyway? We know people answer questions according to alignment or reward, or when it's part of a puzzle. Play with that by making the options a little more pertinent. Violent Stupid will sub in for both good and evil "kill everyone!" solutions to problems. Combining Good with Violent Stupid can make you just as much of a threat as Evil and Violent Stupid, where you go around hacking homeless people up with a chainsaw for a few gold. A single quest might have several branching points where you can pick up some good points, some violence points, and maybe some neutral points and still come out 'good', but it would make for a more nuanced game overall if people knew to respond to your character's Motivation (good, evil, neutral) as well as if or if not they blow away everything they see. Adding 'pacifist' in there isn't necessary, since you can just make violence a single sliding scale from zero to awesome, with only Master Chief and HK-47 comfortable talking to you at the high end of violent.
Instead of asking about the ethics, let's ask how players choose to solve problems--doesn't really matter what it is. Let's take the standard example of a Village asking the player for Help with some raiders, which seems to be a Good-aligned task. His village is peaceful and they have only simple weapons, so he asks you to got to their cave and shoot them, saving the hostage they took, and supplies you a map of the dangerously rugged area. There's four basic ways to engage a problem in a game:
Cooperatively, in that you agree to help and help them without asking for generous compensation, or find the way that helps the most people. You find the raiders deal in human trafficing and the village elder was complicit until he demanded a bigger cut and was refused. He threatened them, so they took a mother of four as hostage, and then he hired you. So you take out the raiders to insure no more people get put through slavery and rape, bring back the hostage, and let the village try the elder for his crimes. Everyone wins, minimum of death, and you might even loose some more money than you gain by helping a would-be slave get back to her far-flung village after freeing the rest. When you get there they have all sorts of problems too, and you end up mostly broke but talked about and known far-and-wide through the tribal lands and the patchwork of stories past by slaves and sex workers of the world as a hero who eats evil and craps justice, and works for free. A variety of slavers decide to leave the region just to avoid you entirely, and you occasionally come across their abandoned camps.
Manipulatively, in that you agree to help but find a way to screw them over for more profit in a way that has the greatest long-term benefits. You find the raiders and when they tell you their story, you shake them down for some protection money in exchange for not killing them. You ask for more than they can afford and agree to a payment plan instead, offering to show them a place they'll more easily be able to conduct their business in peace. They give you the hostage agree to pay you smaller amounts over time, and leave open the possibility of working with them in the future after they set up camp where you said to prey on some tribals. You go back to the elder and tell him you killed the raiders and rescued the hostage, but learned what he was up to, and so did the hostage. You bring her in and she agrees to keep quiet if the elder gives her some money so she can finally move to a nicer city and start a life--she's got no idea what you actually did to the raiders. The elder agrees to all of your terms, and hers, and everyone goes back to living peacefully. You now have a lady who likes you and owes you favors, an elder who knows you could get him arrested and hanged, and some slavers who think you're a half-decent hardass who might be good to go into business with.
Reluctant, in that you either turn the mission down and move on, or you do the least amount of work for a fair price and don't ask questions. This is a legitimate path, it just makes you more neutral, and not in a 'balance of light and dark extremes' sort of way like in KotOR, but as in your prime motivating principle being reason and not ethics. If it's simple, you'll do it for cheap. If it's hard, you may not do it at all unless they agree to pay you fairly or there's a good motivating factor. You agree to help, but won't agree to go in and save them. Instead you propose to help the villagers plan an ambush, and bait the raiders into it by agreeing to pay the ransom. If you had played the other plotlines you'd know there's no ransom, so the message that he sends them seems more cryptic than your standard "I got your money" response but whatev', not your job. The raiders come to complete business, you shoot them all dead in a quick fight that gets some of the villagers shot, but the hostages are free and the village learned the hard way about the real world. On subsequent visits the village gets more hostile to outsiders, but they actually start stocking weapons and ammo in the store, which is helpful even if the prices are a tad high.
Violently Stupid, in which reason and morality take a backseat to the "Nobody tells me what to do" machismo idiot option, and the solution is always bullets, except when it's stabbing, or punching childen with a powersuit fist. You don't agree to help, and demand he give you the money now so you can see he's legit. He gives you the map, and asks you for help. You shoot everyone, and then go to the cave, shoot everyone there too. Since the freed tribal speaks an odd language you can't understand her silly gibberish since wat the hell this iz ameica wut she speeking other ppl languges 4?! Or conversely, you agree to go and then shoot everyone at the cave before anyone can talk to you, like some sort of bullet-spitting avenging angel of blind justice. It goes both ways. Regardless of which, you basically end the plot right there because everyone is dead.
That would be better. Now, evil plotlines are a bitch to write, good and violent as the two options are way, way easier to do. From a game-maker's perspective, the character is usually meant to be good. Being evil then is just a deviation from the plot path, such as shooting people when you shouldn't or choosing the negative options in a conversation choice. Evil ends up being the grab-bag for destructive "blow off some steam mucking around in Vegas" options rather than an actual, legitimate way to be. You'd almost need to make the game from start-to-finish about an evil character, and then make good the same way--instead of working with the badguys, you just keep shooting them and giving up the rewards.
Thanas wrote:A lot of RPGs managed that, for example the Baldur's Gate saga. Also, KOTOR I is another example.
I must have played a different KoTOR. All the Bioware games I've played have featured the same ridiculous 'being evil is about swearing and stabbing people for no reason' crap. You can talk to a bum, and either give him a dollar or murder him. Wow, that's so evil!
Oh wait, it's just lame and weak. Don't get me started on Mass Effect's hilarious idea of representing the kind of guy who 'does what needs to be done' to save the world; in Bioware's world, 'what needs to be done' is usually starting unnecessary conflicts, being rude, or dismissive of subordinates. Wow, that's Hitler-level evil!
I think the problem is with those "evil meters" Bioware games have. Star Control 2 had deep moral issues too. But it did not have a cheesy evil meter with the captain growing horns and red smoke coming out of the background each time he did something evil. You could do some very bad things (tm) including selling your own crew to alien slavery but you felt bad in a natural way. Deus Ex was like this as well. Whatever you did affected the world in a different way but you did not get labeled with "allignments" and when the game finally ends you don't see some random video of "evil ending' or "good ending". Instead it is upto you to decide which ending ultimately was more ethical.
I think games would benefit if they stopped sermonizing on morality and let players decide what they did was wrong or not. After all it's pretty much unlikely everyone's worldview is same as some dude at a bioware office cubicle witting the plot.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
As long as the Good and Evil meters are implemented similarly to Fallout 2(Hey, I just gunned down most of Reno, but no one worries about me in Vault City), I don't care too much. Frankly, it's a parody of the 1950s World Of Tomorrow in every way, shape, and form. It's possibly the one setting where the heavy-handed black/white morality is justifiable.
That being said, it'd be nice if developers in general moved away from it, but Fallout? Not gonna care much.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
You're also assuming in your manipulatively scenario that the raiders don't simply attempt to turn you into a slave, or shoot you for trespassing on their land. Something that vicious criminals are known to do. Especially ones that are living in a post apocalyptic world where pretty much everything can kill you. Fact is, not everyone wants to talk.
Covenant wrote:Want to know what a superior system might be? Have your options influenced by your in-game alignment. The more evil you are, the more subtle and diabolical your choices become. The more good you are the less and less self-centered they are. Thus, you'll have a chance to graduate from petty evil to real evil over the course of the game.
<snip>
Sorry to be all downer and stuff, but Witcher had a far better, more mature 'alignment' system than any Bioware game simply by NOT HAVING ONE AT ALL. There's no 'alignment meter', there are only consequences. The main story is just as rigid as any Bioware game (go on, I fucking dare someone to say Mass Effect has any flexibility plotwise at all) but instead of saying 'zomg that's bad -5 goody points', it just shows you the actual consequences of your actions. Let those nicely-spoken anti-racists pick up a shipment of weapons? That means the wave of violence and killings tearing up the city (and interfering with your investigation) is partly your fault. People don't magically know what you did alone on the moor, but the consequences of that has knock-on effects throughout the story that actually give you a sense of RESPONSIBILITY, and not just 'ooh I unlocked a convo option loloololol'.
The first such sequence even has an ingame character ask the PC (and indirectly, the player) 'if you'd known it would have caused this, would you still have made that decision' - because it turns out decisions can have unforeseen consequences.
No wonder the western RPG market didn't like Witcher. LOL!
Good and evil for some reason has become some bizarre want in western RPGs to seperate itself from the Japanese RPG. Why? Who knows. But the system itself is really stupid. There might as well be the Force in these games given that if you start down the dark path, you practically show it. This is fucking stupid. I mean honestly, why can't you look at the populace of said game and go "good, good, dunno, evil, whoa...evil."?
There shouldn't be a meter, instead have either actions happen because of something you did that affects you(Witcher does it decent at some points, at others is just as ham fisted) and have your actions only affect your local surroundings. If said person hears about it, then deal with the dialogue from there.
As for choices? There should also be something other then hand held version of such. I really hate when I can look at the dialogue and realize Fallout 2 had more care to it when I can "SUAPH GOOD!, EVIL MOTHERFUCKING ASS MOUTHER!, meh".
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!
Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all
The video seems a bit ham-handed, but if it gives you the option to shoot Burke dead on the spot (and actually give the player the option to explain WHY to the townsfolk NPCs), I'll be pretty happy with it.
Few things piss me off more easily in games than being forced to let a jackass jerk you around for the purposes of plot. Anyone here who's played the early Aht Urhgan storyline in FFXI knows exactly which overbearing, arrogant, cheating, lying, rotten stinking cat bitch I'm thinking of here.
My idea is that the entire idea of allowing choices in morality in VGs have to be rethinked.
For starters, we are given outright choices. Kill her or not to kill her. The question is, why should we kill her? Why does the player believe she must be killed? Where is intention? That is the question the writers should be asking.
RPG writers must stop trying to give a sandbox where players are allowed to be pricks, but rather motivations whether they want to be pricks or not.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Zixinus wrote:My idea is that the entire idea of allowing choices in morality in VGs have to be rethinked.
For starters, we are given outright choices. Kill her or not to kill her. The question is, why should we kill her? Why does the player believe she must be killed? Where is intention? That is the question the writers should be asking.
RPG writers must stop trying to give a sandbox where players are allowed to be pricks, but rather motivations whether they want to be pricks or not.
Um no. Most RPG games are already interactive storybooks. They are as far away as you can get from the "sandbox" models. If you wanna go further like this why not make a movie instead ?
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
I'm not as concerned with the standard black and white approach to morality as I am that the voice acting (esp the sheriff) seems to suck. The lines sounded forced and not flowing naturally to me.
Children of the Ancients
I'm sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate the phone by 90 degrees and try again.
