Being evil is boring

#1 Discussion continued from here.

#2 Speaking of being Darth Vader and being evil in MMOs...
Here is a video/music story (playlist) of being exactly that in SWGEmu (a Pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies Emulator.
The Penalty for Treason (The Story of Epic Fail aka Lewt aka Ruledo and The STORM Guild and their war against the NINE guild).
The only penalties that happened to me for being an evil player was a temporary ban on my entire guild, and after we dominated the galaxy, there was nobody left to fight.
IMO, SWG Pre-CU is one of the best player provided content MMOs ever.
All the Imperials, Sith, STORM members, SURGE Members, ONE Members and gank squads are my guild, on occasion we were able to hijack the enemies Fraps videos and include them in the story.
I feel that the only consequences for choosing an evil faction/alignment should be social/political and be enforced by the player population, NOT THE GAME MECHANICS.

#3 Let me introduce a new point of view to this discussion which may also be an explanation to the initial question. Why. Why is evil and are evil actions punished many cases.

Let me bring up a harsh example. Child abuse. If the developer includes this subject in their game (which is most likely is either forbidden or results in an 18+ rating) the developer will face consequences.

If they do not make an example in their game either stating that such actions are bad or at least encouraging the choice not doing so may result in the developer being judged as a child abuse accepter... and you know people, that is just the LEAST the dev. could expect.

Now imagine if the players would even be rewarded for such actions. Imagine the witch-hunt, negative effect to company profile and drop of both shares and sales this will (nearly) assurely result in. Even possible the game would be banned in most countries completely for even adults, or even worse the ompany itself would be forced to close down or at least would not be able to operate due to no one would want to cooperate with them... the child abusers.

So when a company is chosing to act "nicely" and say "nono" to evil and "yesyes" to good they just do what their very existence is (most cases primarily but in general at least secondarily is for) to make profit and make a living of their hobbies and not working for someone else who they hate.

But in general it is very difficult to live in a world where limited minded people would simply shout at you on the street "there is that child abuser, let's get him/her" when they recognize you, even if you have just offered freedom of choice and may very likely not even accept such actions in real life... but people ask never and make their own judgement based on their "facts".

So I believe this is also an important factor when designers make such decisions, not just freedom of choice and realistic gameplay.

#4 And that's why most game developpers will carefuly steer away from involving childrens in a game (bethesda).

But that's beside the point, what I would expect from a game however is to stand by it's concept, either don't give me a choice and do not pretend to do so, or give me a choice, but then I expect the game designer to stay neutral, regardless of the outcome.

#5 There is nothing boring with doing a grand theft auto, spraying a few civilians with your UZI and then getting away from the police in a jiffy.

;)

#6 @Kyrah Abattoir: Yes but you completely missed the point of what I wrote as that is what I've explained, the designer can not stay neutral or it will be misjudged by the short minded masses, and as masses define the reputation and future of the company, the designer is forced to effect the game and make it represent the measurement of the masses, especially in case of games accessible by teens. Even if this is a spoken fact or not told about, it is a fact that no one avoids and is an integral part of people's ways of thinking and designing games even if do not realize this usually.

Oh and btw the child abuse example was just ONE of many others and is chosen to emphasize and make it easier to understand the situation. I could chose other examples as animal killing, animal abuse, slavery, stealing, murder, and so on but those are more flexible and depend on the measures of the reader, while child abuse is for most people a clear "no never" and is something to get hyped about most cases.

#7 yeah but most games don't have troubles "erasing" the morality issue of murder, also as much as i know that making "PG" games makes more sense on a financial standpoint because of the larger exposure, lets not forget there is no reasons to not have games that appeal strictly to an adult demographic.

There has to be a grey line we, the game designers can "surf" in order to create a truly deep experience :)

Video games aren't just for kids.

#8 "Most gamers are old enough, it isn't the game designer's pedagogic duty to teach us the vertues of goodness!"

It's the responsibility of any artist to reveal themselves in their work. More importantly, your work needs to make a statement. The statement can't be "I dunno" or "You figure it out," at least not if you hope to be successful.

What you want is a world simulator, not a game. A game gives you hints as to what you're supposed to do. If you're not supposed to do anything, then it's just a giant sandbox to dick around in.

Being a prick to all of the villagers can be its own reward. I don't need to earn points or level up - I'm going against the grain and that feels good. If the game just let me do it and even gave me points for it, it would immediately cease to be fun.

There's a long dissertation on the Theory of Rewarded Behavior (I'll see if I can't find the PDF) that basically boils down to: the more you reward me for a behavior, the less intrinsic motivation I have to do it. It's why a lot of people end up hating their job, for example. You begin to crave the reward and not the act.

If the cops didn't come after you in grand theft auto, stealing tanks and beating up civilians would lose its luster very quickly. If the whole POINT of the game was beat up people, I'd quickly feel disgusted at the game.

There are plenty of games where the whole point is you're the bad guy. There are few really "fun" games where being bad or good is a equally rewarded (Fable, Black and White) - and these games are not exactly regarded as hall of fame games.

"choosing a good path tend to be easier and provide better rewards (aren't good peoples supposed to have low self interest?)"

That's all besides the point that you can't be forced to play a lawful/good character in a video game - No one wants to take a vow of poverty and just help people all day. That's what D&D is really for - true immersion.

Also, the evil path is much easier (and arguably more fun) in Black and White. You get a lot more belief quicker and you can gain bursts of belief whenever you want (sacrifice people). Contrast that with the slow/steady gain of belief by performing miracles and waiting, meanwhile people in the village slowly just stop giving belief if you don't pay attention to them.

"Well i'm sorry if you plan to make so simplistic deductions (wich basically makes the player wish he did a good character) you might aswell forget entirely about implementing a karma system. "

Most Karma systems are put in place to enforce a singular play-style, not open up an evil play-style option. In World of Warcraft, you try to become exalted with other factions, and if you kill a member of that faction, you lose reputation. There's never a real "drive" to become hated by the other faction, unless you're doing it for fun personal reasons. If you just take out the "reputation system", then there's no goal, there's not struggle, and there's no GAME.

"here has to be a grey line we, the game designers can "surf" in order to create a truly deep experience :)"

That line has nothing to do with appropriateness. A deep experience can be had picking flowers. Games aren't for kids, they're for people, least among which sociopaths.

In fact, kids are more likely to enjoy your "anything goes" style game than adults. Kids haven't been indoctrinated with as many values, and would be able to immerse themselves quicker. Funny how that works...

It's an interesting call to action, but I'll definitely vote no on the whole idea. To each their own opinion, and I hope I've explained mine.

#9 Infamous is doing a good job I think then, cause when your evil in that game everything is much easyer with better skills and all. Still I choose the good path cause i like it the hard way.

#10 @Daniel

Yes about the sandbox, i do believe that, given the right environement to express themselve, players will create their own story arc.

What my main gripe is all about is mainly that some game designers lie to us, presenting a possibility of making a good or a bad choice, but in the end punishing the player for not taking the choice that the game designer favored. Games are about entertainment, one can play someone who is radically different from their real personality, and it's fun really, so why punishing the player in some pseudo pedagogic way "oh what you did was bad, you shouldn't do this again".

Why giving the option if it isn't a real option?

#11

Quote:It's the responsibility of any artist to reveal themselves in their work. More importantly, your work needs to make a statement. The statement can't be "I dunno" or "You figure it out,"

I heartily agree with this - but then I think of one of my favourite movies, Gone Baby Gone, which I enjoyed so much because it did just present two alternatives and shrug its shoulders. I respected the way the filmmaker didn't try to convince me of his own opinion, but presented the arguments and let me think about it. It was stimulating.

That said, in games, I actually enjoy the presence of some sort of moral message. Think of CoD4 (sort of... I respected that they squeezed a bit of an anti-war message into certain parts even when the entire rest of the game was screaming 'WAR IS TOTALLY AWESOME BITCH!!' at me), for a simplistic example.

Quote:so why punishing the player in some pseudo pedagogic way "oh what you did was bad, you shouldn't do this again".

I think it's all in the implementation. The reality is, karma's a bitch. People who do bad (generally, I like to believe) end badly, and our entire society is set up to ensure this (with notable exceptions... :P). But if it's just 'oh, you chose Y over X, you lost 10 points', then it's not really capturing any meaningful consequences of your actions (assuming that gaining points is a meaningful consequence of doing good :P).

Quote:Why giving the option if it isn't a real option?

The point is, it's still an option. It's a decision you make, like people who play Thief and try never to be spotted - it's a handicap you choose for yourself. When done well, of course! Games are full of options that aren't 'real' options - otherwise there'd be no gameplay. The point of the game is figuring out what you have to do, then doing it. If it happens to be shooting people, so be it. If it's being nice to old ladies, fine.

#12 Well, in the case of Gone Baby Gone, I'm sure the film maker went through great lengths to craft both ends of the argument, stage them to look equally right, and then probably left you hanging at the end (I haven't seen it, but I'm I getting warm?)

In games, you can't just leave people hanging or it will upset 90% of your user base, least among which your publisher.

Also, You can't force people to perceive things the way you want in a game. You can't rig the lighting, camera angles, etc. Some people play part of the game on mute, so sometimes the voice acting doesn't even get heard. Some people skip cut-scenes. Some people spend hours grinding for fun between missions, lessening the emotional impact of a quest, and diminishing urgency.

The point is, you can't manufacture the experience to produce a truly conflicted player by the end of the game. Either they laughed uproariously at the children getting slaughtered (because they can no longer take the game seriously), or they refuse to embrace the possibility of being the evil force in the game.

#13

Quote:in the case of Gone Baby Gone

You're basically right - but the film did have a proper ending, you're just left to wonder whether it was what *should* have happened, whether the right decision was made. Not a cliff-hanger per se, but not a clear-cut moral resolution.

Quote:Also, You can't force people to perceive things the way you want in a game. ...

That's definitely a big difference in the types of media. Though I don't think there's mutual exclusivity between tightly-controlled or scripted games and games which offer deep choices. See Heavy Rain - from what I've seen of it (really need to play it!), it seems to be a very scripted and story-centric game, but still allow the player's choices to affect the outcome of events. Games that offer choice don't have to be GTA.

I think that a great example of 'punishing' evil in a game is Deus Ex (I should have mentioned it before). (Note: I think a great example of insert anything here in a game is Deus Ex, so... :P) You're totally free to play any way you like - go super-stealthy, or guns blazing. However, you're surrounded by characters who both do and don't care for the people you're shooting at - some encourage you to be brutal, others reprimand you for it. You probably get far more net benefit from 'playing nice', but that's totally justified - I don't think any current governments give op bonus money for slaughtering civilians :P. It'd feel artificial if the developers felt the need to make every play-style totally viable by giving you rewards for playing the bastard as well.
[This is related to the stealth vs action play-style choices you can make in Deus Ex. If you're feeling brave, there's some great discussion at the TTLG forums about whether all styles should be made equally viable all the time.]

#14 Still, the vision of things presented by games is mostly a simplified manichean system with little to no middle ground where you are either a good samaritan or some kind of sadistic man-beast who kill peoples for entertainment.

There has to be more to it, in real life, most criminal minds depend too much of the system to be able to afford such a radical lifestyle and/or get purged by the system quickly.

If you ever played the thief serie, the character the player incarnate isn't exactly your textbook hero, his persona tend to look down upon everybody, and consider his friends in a purely utilitarian way, showing contempt and unwillingness to give back services.