Are you the good guy or the bad guy?

[Skykid]

Playing Red Dead Redemption at the moment and given the choices you can make at certain junctures (as in, buy the deed to the guys house or take it by force, or just generally shoot the hell out of everything) I was wondering which path people find they're more inclined to follow in games where you can define how people react to you later on.

Personally, when there are actual stats (such as Red Dead's Fame and Honor Points guage, that increases or decreases depending on whether you're good or bad) I normally find myself compelled to do the right thing.

But in games where there are no reprisals from killing innocent people and such (like Die Hard Trilogy on the PS1) I quite enjoy mowing the whole lot of them down.

So yeah, just curious as to what people prefer to do in such games. To be honest, I'm quite liking the idea of killing people on dirt roads for no reason in Red Dead because that's what being an outlaw is all about - but because of the points system I just won't do it.

[charlie chong]

BADDIES FOR THE WIN
I WOULD SHOOT YOR HEAD OFF THEN LAUGH

[ncp]

Good, always.

[Vyxx]

The more and more "realistic" games get these days, the more and more I find myself being the good guy.

It's not that violence bothers me by any means, but the more the characters have life in the game I almost feel sorry for them

[1up]

in my first playthrough of Fallout 3 I was Jesus like good. I always bend over backways for peoples demands

[Jockel]

In games i usually play the good guy because the benefits of the bad side usually aren't as good
and it get's rather annoying if everyone out there wants to kill you.

[evil_ash_xero]

Good, bad...i'm the guy with the gun.

[Ghegs]

In games i usually play the good guy because the benefits of the bad side usually aren't as good

I do this too. Don't know if it's actually true, but I always get the feeling that I'm going to miss out on some cool item or weapon or whatnot if I don't play it straight 'n narrow. And in many games playing as a bad guy seems to be broken to an extent...whack a peasant in the middle of a corn field and suddenly every guard in every kingdom is after you.

So it's less of a "moral" choice and more of a convenient one.

[jonny5]

bad guy..although i think the only game ive played that gave the option was bioshock 1 + 2

[charlie chong]

I REMEBER IN DEUS EX I WAS MEANT TO ARREST AND INTERROGATE A CRACK DEALER. I SHOT HIM AND STOLE HIS MONEY AND CRACK

[Khan]

Good, like in Oblivion I always did my best to help innocents and do things the right way doing things in such a fashion means I end up with better xp and maybe a trinket or two. Doing evil usually means less friends and more enemies which is ok I suppose if your the type of guy who likes to kill everything in sight and sometimes being pure evil is fun and can be rewarding. (there are some abilities and spells that can only be obtained through evil acts and they are good powerful spells too)

[RGC]

.

[Skykid]

Yeah, this reflects my way of going about it too.

But what if there were no negative connotations and you could massacre people without having any adverse effects within the game. Obviously it might shape your character and you'd be percieved with fear and disdain - but how many people would relish the opportunity to be a no holds barred bad guy?

Are there any games like this?

[Ruldra]

Call me a powergamer but I'll do whatever gives me the most exp. Usually the good path is the most beneficial, but sometimes the evil one has better rewards. Or sometimes doing both at the same time.

Reminds me of a specific quest in Baldur's Gate: you're given the task to protect some diggers excavating an area, and they find an evil god altar. You're then told to not pick a stone you found earlier and put it on the altar, or the god is summoned. I agree not to, the guy pays me and leaves. I then summon the god, kill him and get extra exp and loot.

[Dragoforce]

But what if there were no negative connotations and you could massacre people without having any adverse effects within the game. Obviously it might shape your character and you'd be percieved with fear and disdain - but how many people would relish the opportunity to be a no holds barred bad guy?

Are there any games like this?

That would be poor game design if implemented in a RPG. If you give that player a choice between good and evil without full consequences you're just being sloppy. The GTA series comes to mind though. Slaughtering civilians don't really give you any long-term drawbacks. The cops chase you for a while, but afterwards everything is back to normal.

[Skykid]

But what if there were no negative connotations and you could massacre people without having any adverse effects within the game. Obviously it might shape your character and you'd be percieved with fear and disdain - but how many people would relish the opportunity to be a no holds barred bad guy?

Are there any games like this?

That would be poor game design if implemented in a RPG. If you give that player a choice between good and evil without full consequences you're just being sloppy. The GTA series comes to mind though. Slaughtering civilians don't really give you any long-term drawbacks. The cops chase you for a while, but afterwards everything is back to normal.

Well here's the thing (and here's where this becomes a Red Dead Redemption thread): First of all I dislike open world games, especially GTA. As a gamer grown up in a simpler time, I prefer my games to have less variables and parameters and be more concise - I'm really put off by feeling as though stones are left unturned, and even more put off by the mammoth task of doing everything in open world games to get to all those stones. To me that's not fun, it's labour.

However, RDR's western theme really appeals to me, so much so I've actually promised to invest much time into it and amazingly I'm really enjoying playing it without feeling the need to do every mission, exhaust every possibilty or reap XP (or points or whatever.)

However, there's one issue with the game - the main character isn't hard enough. He's an ex-outlaw and great at killing people, but he rarely acts like one. They often refer to him as the 'quite type' which is baloney because he never stops waffling.
Don't get me wrong, he's still pretty cool and looks gritty enough, but I'd prefer to be able to shape him into a bit more of a mean individual - but I can't, because it gets me chased and disliked by everyone.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. It was this train of thought that made me think of the topic in the first place. Basically (and surprisingly for a Rockstar game) it's the developers fault for not making him a bit more of a badass - but it's certainly not enough to detract a recommendation, RDR is ace.

[kengou]

Yeah, this reflects my way of going about it too.

But what if there were no negative connotations and you could massacre people without having any adverse effects within the game. Obviously it might shape your character and you'd be percieved with fear and disdain - but how many people would relish the opportunity to be a no holds barred bad guy?

Are there any games like this?

In the GTA games, this is possible. In Red Dead Redemption, you can purchase a bandanna to hide your face, which will prevent any honor or fame changes due to evil acts. You can rob people, kill people, lasso people, do whatever the hell you want, and the only consequence is they'll try to shoot you or the sheriffs will hunt you down (unless you kill all the witnesses!).

As for me, I played through Red Dead until the ending as a good guy, because Marston's character was basically good - no matter how much he claimed to be a hardass killer, he's really not, he's all talk

But as soon as I got past the ending (you know what I'm talking about if you got there) I am now playing as pure evil. I think it suits the character better, at that point. Plus it's fun.

[monkeyman]

I find I always play the good guy because I've not yet played a game where being the bad guy makes any sense. Most games with good and evil systems seem to be written with the 'good' quest in mind. All the ones I've played have a basically good person (where the main character isn't simply a blank canvas) and all seem to have you purging evil from the land. Any bad choices are usually inconsequential (apart from maybe a different cut scene further down the line).

RDR is a good example of this since John Marston is trying to be good and is just doing what he needs to do to save his family. Robbing every house in town or shooting up the local populace doesnt fit into this so all my mayhem making is reserved for free roam.

Most the time, the evil choices seem to be to extort money from a quest giver (which makes sense but usually ends up with the exact same quest) or kill the quest giver and loot the corpse, which ends up meaning you bypass much of what the game has to offer. The trouble is that may gamers seem to equate being bad to mindlessly killing everyone they see, which doesn't leave much room for story or characters and really is just relegated to some post completion messing about.

The best game so far to implement a good evil system is bioshock, as it doesn't pretend that it's going to effect the outcome of the game, and is ultimately a choice of being bad for an instant reward or being good for a smaller instant reward but some other benefits further down the line. Either choice is viable and the moral dilemma seems very real (the motive behind many criminal acts is after all quick wealth and not a desire for mindless destruction).

[Klatrymadon]

This is the funny thing about RDR. I'm usually really moralistic in games that give you a modicum of free choice, and will refrain from harming animals and generally everybody who isn't an utterly hateful bastard, but I'm finding that in this one my immediate reaction on spotting wildlife is to reach for my rifle and dispatch it, and although I feel enormous kinship with any old horse I picked up five minutes ago, I delight in dealing with pursuers by shooting their horses right through the eyes, and watching the scoundrels soar out of their saddles.

[Mortificator]

I'm Mr. Bad Guy. They're all afraid of me. I can ruin people's lives. It's the only way to be.

Temple of Elemental Evil was the most recent game I've played with moralistic choices, though I had to rethink the scale of my "evil" when I had my party try to randomly kill villagers at the start, only to get their asses kicked by three farmers and a couple milkmaids. lol level 1 D&D characters

[Skykid]

This is the funny thing about RDR. I'm usually really moralistic in games that give you a modicum of free choice, and will refrain from harming animals and generally everybody who isn't an utterly hateful bastard, but I'm finding that in this one my immediate reaction on spotting wildlife is to reach for my rifle and dispatch it, and although I feel enormous kinship with any old horse I picked up five minutes ago, I delight in dealing with pursuers by shooting their horses right through the eyes, and watching the scoundrels soar out of their saddles.

Yeah, this reflects my way of going about it too.

But what if there were no negative connotations and you could massacre people without having any adverse effects within the game. Obviously it might shape your character and you'd be percieved with fear and disdain - but how many people would relish the opportunity to be a no holds barred bad guy?

Are there any games like this?

In the GTA games, this is possible. In Red Dead Redemption, you can purchase a bandanna to hide your face, which will prevent any honor or fame changes due to evil acts. You can rob people, kill people, lasso people, do whatever the hell you want, and the only consequence is they'll try to shoot you or the sheriffs will hunt you down (unless you kill all the witnesses!).

As for me, I played through Red Dead until the ending as a good guy, because Marston's character was basically good - no matter how much he claimed to be a hardass killer, he's really not, he's all talk

But as soon as I got past the ending (you know what I'm talking about if you got there) I am now playing as pure evil. I think it suits the character better, at that point. Plus it's fun.

It seems everyone is having similar experiences to me then, especially with how they regard Marston as a character (and how perhaps he should behave.)

However, Kengou, I need to find that bandana and loosen up a bit!

[Vexorg]

I just couldn't properly play an evil character if I tried. On the other hand, most games with these branching systems like this tend to bore me to the point I barely get 10% through the game (Fallout 3 was the last one I tried.)

[BulletMagnet]

I just couldn't properly play an evil character if I tried.

I tend to be like this too - I'm not much good at being a jerk just for the sake of being a jerk, even in a video game.

[saucykobold]

I usually play a good character or party. I'll occasionally play the villain if there's a good item or stat reward.

Edit: That only holds for cartoon villainy. When a game gives me the option of being a child killer (or what have you), I pass.

[Damocles]

in my first playthrough of Fallout 3 I was Jesus like good. I always bend over backways for peoples demands

This. That being said, being "good" was normally the way to get the best shit.

[Elixir]

Well..

In Demon's Souls, I always tried to be the good guy, never hitting any NPCs or anything. Unfortunately, the game leans you towards being the bad guy if you die in human form, so at first that really wasn't an option. Certain areas could only be accessed with pure white or pure black tendency. From what I noticed, pure black tendency had way more advantages.

In Fable, pretty much everyone had a British voice acting, so for me, it was fairly difficult not wanting to smack up an NPC that goes "oi! 'hat the bloody 'ell you think ore doin'?" every time. I always used to piss the guards off, run into someone's house and sleep in their beds. It never worked, but I always found it funny. Getting 100% pure was always a chore. I must have spent more time restarting and playing through the first three hours than doing anything else.

In GTA, the series wants you to be the bad guy. Even if you play as the good guy, there's no real benefit. I don't mean like going around everywhere with a 5 star wanted level, I mean just never killing or destroying anything. Even if you accidentally get 1 star for killing, it goes away after about 5 minutes. Strange teaching.

In Crackdown, it's difficult to remain on the wrong side of the law for too long, especially considering you'll usually have gangs to worry about instead.

In visual novels and stuff like that, you're pretty much forced to use a strict path in order to obtain the best results, so there's no real choice here.

I can't think of any other games with stuff like this in them. I'd like a new sandbox game, but I think I'll wait for Crackdown 2.

[Ed Oscuro]

I generally go out of my way to do all the nicey-nice guy quests but if somebody gives me lip I'll smack 'em around...with the open end of a sawed off
(I'm not sure which is more annoying - playing all "nice' or all "bad," ugghghhh fetch quests, that's the problem I suppose.)

I used to steal everything, but after a few Bethesda games I got off that habit - generally there was too much stuff I couldn't use and nowhere to put it. If it's not tied down and it's useful (i.e. ammo in a Deus Ex) I'll still take it though.

I actually get a bit queasy trying to play a murderer, so I don't. That is kind of odd considering that in any ol' FPS without friendlies to worry about I'll shoot everything.

Age of Chivalry (Broken game, but...):


"Truth be Told..."
Kill a friendly and then laugh about it.

[Obiwanshinobi]

The more and more "realistic" games get these days, the more and more I find myself being the good guy.

It's not that violence bothers me by any means, but the more the characters have life in the game I almost feel sorry for them

As for me, it has more to do with me getting older (growing up?) than games getting more "realistic". Everytime I digest in acid that beaked boss in Super Metroid, I feel bad about it. In real life, I don't discover last specimena of exotic species only to invade their lair and throw them into acid bath.
Usually I play the good guy's role, but I choosed to kill at least one enemy character I could spare in Suikoden. I knew it wouldn't do me any good, but the bastard really pushed it. That's Suikoden for ya.

[sven666]

killed everyone in the vault before i left (fallout 3)..

executed all the "prisoners" in mgs 4..

always try to look up skirts/down clevage in whatever game i play..

..yeah im the bad guy i guess.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Deus Ex ladies had panties, didn't they? Kudos for that, considering how generally crude the character models were in that game.