Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This only gave grief

3 (6.1%)

Grakelin is not stupid

6 (12.2%)

Are you happier now?

1 (2%)

------ Haiku, the encore -----

17 (34.7%)

Disagreeing, Fine

0 (0%)

Why you make a fuzz 'bout it?

3 (6.1%)

Lets just be happy

19 (38.8%)

Total Members Voted: 48

[Draco18s]

I am now planning a game that fixes all the current problems games have.

Actual strategy, very diverse tactics, high customizability (think mechwarrior games), high survivability for each player instead of either a "god-hero-dude" or "pewpew my watergun kills your tank", many different factions that have legitimate reasons. Other stuff.

A (mostly) online space fight game.

Good luck.

[Soulwynd]

Make it l(awful) vs chaos then. Y'know, government against pirates.

It's much more interesting and realistic to make it a contest of power, such as we had and still have in real life. There's no right or wrong, no good or evil. Interests clash, that's pretty common and can be used effectively as a story telling method. I never really understand why certain writers go for 'evil' and don't really bother exploring what is 'evil', they just say; they're evil for wanting power (Or often control) at any cost. That's not evil, that's just not caring. I guess it's easy for people to simply portray something as evil, but that's really childish.

Modern games don't believe in this at all. If there's a secret, the player damn well better find it.

I call that Achievement Syndrome. It's basically the psychological method people mentioned around. Give players 'rewards' to keep them interested. It's the reason you can see what's required to acquire a certain achievement.

[TolyK]

Make it l(awful) vs chaos then. Y'know, government against pirates.

grrrr
I mean, different factions. as in wealthy planets, research planets, communist planets (just kidding, but you get the idea...)

plus mercenaries, pirates, other stuff. all in a giant MMO game.

I am now planning a game that fixes all the current problems games have.

Actual strategy, very diverse tactics, high customizability (think mechwarrior games), high survivability for each player instead of either a "god-hero-dude" or "pewpew my watergun kills your tank", many different factions that have legitimate reasons. Other stuff.

A (mostly) online space fight game.

Good luck.

thanks.

Make it l(awful) vs chaos then. Y'know, government against pirates.

It's much more interesting and realistic to make it a contest of power, such as we had and still have in real life. There's no right or wrong, no good or evil. Interests clash, that's pretty common and can be used effectively as a story telling method. I never really understand why certain writers go for 'evil' and don't really bother exploring what is 'evil', they just say; they're evil for wanting power (Or often control) at any cost. That's not evil, that's just not caring. I guess it's easy for people to simply portray something as evil, but that's really childish.

Yeah exactly.

[Draco18s]

Modern games don't believe in this at all. If there's a secret, the player damn well better find it.

I call that Achievement Syndrome. It's basically the psychological method people mentioned around. Give players 'rewards' to keep them interested. It's the reason you can see what's required to acquire a certain achievement.

And in some cases they don't tell you.  My (haha) current development project is a bunch of Soup Can like unlisted "achievements" (cough, stat bonus items) just to be obtuse.  They're not achievements like "kill 100 monsters" or "collect 1000 gold" or things like that but nonsensical things, like walking into a wall for 10 seconds or not-killing monsters (on another level).

[ed boy]

Modern games don't believe in this at all. If there's a secret, the player damn well better find it. No player should ever be left to figure something out for themselves. The most modern games will accept is dumping you in a room with obvious puzzle element, a giant neon question mark that no one can overlook. No player should ever have to "wander" to get anywhere, they should always know exactly where they need to go, what they need to do and what they'll get for doing it.

adding secrets into the game can take a long time and a lot of effort to do. The game developers don't wany to spend hundreds or thousands of man hours developing content that will never be seen, or will only be seen by a small number of players.

[nenjin]

Part of the problem with evil is that writers want evil characters that are also human. Short of being mustache twirling bad guys....they tend to end up looking "misguided" next to the protagonists. And I think I hate that almost more than stereotypical evil guys. Lots of times when people are constructing that whole "there is no good/evil divide"....the protagonists are still saints, in the end, which still makes your bad guys "evil."

Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne was great about this though. Your character is a human made a demon by Satan, because he wants you to become his champion and basically help him achieve dominance over god. Meanwhile, the world is filled with characters who are all trying to seize the ultimate power for themselves, so they can remake creation under the rules they believe in. It's Japanese, so the motivations are like "perfect stillness where everyone becomes one" "every person becomes an island unto themselves" "the strong lead while the weak serve", that kind of stuff. A lot of beliefs without a clear black/white line, where everyone can be just as enlightened as they are misguided, depending on whose point of view you want to take.

That said, I do think there's such a thing as appropriate "pure evil." The toadies withstanding, damn near everything in the Cthulhu mythos is evil in a non-human way. We don't understand the Elder Thing's motivations, or even their goal, but we know that they scare the shit out of us and the stuff they do can be just as amazing as it is horrifying. Cthluhu has never opened his mouth once, yet pretty much anyone that's read the stories knows he's the epitome of evil as humans understand it.

Not really sure where I'm going with all that, except to say that I guess "bleeding heart bad guys" don't necessarily win me over any quicker than "bad guys designed for you to hate them."

adding secrets into the game can take a long time and a lot of effort to do. The game developers don't wany to spend hundreds or thousands of man hours developing content that will never be seen, or will only be seen by a small number of players.

I think it's a matter of priorities. Are you making a game based on discovery and exploration? Or are you making your standard hack n' slash fantasy game, and 75% through you tell your guys to go back and add some fake doors here and there because these kinds of games have secret doors and chests hidden behind secret doors? In KF2, as in KF1, and KF4, making the player have to actually search for things is a design philosophy.

And to me, bottomline, if your game is amazing, I WILL SEE IT ALL. If your game is a steaming pile of boring, chances are, I'm not even going to see the stuff you intended for me to see. Why do I need to earn achievements, for example, when I already know what it is, what it takes to get it and that it contributes nothing for having done so? The only difference between an achievement gotten and an achievement missed, in most cases, is one is highlighted and the other isn't.

[Soulwynd]

Hmm... Well... Take the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" as an example, despise the stupid ending. The anti-hero could easily be considered evil. I didn't consider him evil at all and wanted him to win at all costs. I'd do the same thing if I were in his shoes and even worse. Yet, he was shown as the evil/villain of the movie while the 'hero'' was the worst villain of all and should have died.

So yes, you can make some believable character that can be considered evil by the opposing party and still have people who would take his side. This goes for both sides of that movie.

[nenjin]

As it relates to gaming, the anti-hero has basically been reduced down to a guy who doesn't shave, who shoots first and has a hard time forming close personal relationships. I like a well-written anti-hero that occasionally makes me squirm in my support of them. Very few games actually have protagonists like that though. Renegade Sheperd is close, I guess.

[The Architect]

Without an absolute standard, good and evil don't exist.

That's simple logical conclusion, factual and easily established. Either there is an absolute (read "non-debatable", "unchanging") standard, or there is no possible distinction between good and evil. All that is left is "good for me/you/us/them" and "bad for me/you/us/them". At that point, it's purely a matter of viewpoint: time, place, circumstances, and opinion.

Simple example
Absolute viewpoint: Lying is always evil (read as "wrong", "bad").
It may have some good results and truth may have some bad results, but truth is right and falsehood is wrong.

Humanist/modern/non-religious viewpoint: Lying is good sometimes, and bad others. Specific examples are "good" for some people, "bad" for others involved in the same lie. Everything is judged by the motivation and visible results.

We all speak in terms of "good" and "evil", "bad", "wrong", "right". These terms reflect a viewpoint that is no longer prevalent among human beings, and thus lose their meaning in such conversations. To me, it is always wrong to lie, even to tell my girlfriend her jeans look good when they're too tight. It may make her feel good about herself, but it's a lie to tell her something I don't really think.

You are tapping into a huge and fascinating philosophical debate that has raged throughout all of recorded history. Is there Good and Evil, or only what's good for me/you/us/them right now? Was the murderous sneak attack on Pearl Harbor "good" because it pushed the US into a war where they fought "evil" in the form of tyranny, murder, and oppression? Do you judge something by its intent, results, or some kind of universal natural rule that is supposed to be recognized by all mankind?

Another good example is the "family unit" in the USSR. The family was first purged and disbanded by law as a form of private ownership; marriages were called private prostitution and not desired nor acknowledged by the official government. They were "evil", a remnant of humanity's past ignorance and a violation of Communist doctrine. Then, when it was found that there was a natural order to the human family, and that mankind lived and functioned better that way, it was immediately relabeled as "good", desirable, ideal. There was no standard, only "what is good for the motherland right now in our eyes".

Fascinating, isn't it? I've got a very solid and grounded opinion on it, but that is enough of a derail I think

[Frajic]

As it relates to gaming, the anti-hero has basically been reduced down to a guy who doesn't shave, who shoots first and has a hard time forming close personal relationships. I like a well-written anti-hero that occasionally makes me squirm in my support of them. Very few games actually have protagonists like that though. Renegade Sheperd is close, I guess.

Travis Touchdown? I don't know, but I've heard good(?) stuff about him.

[nenjin]

Other than the shaving bit, everything else seems spot on about him

[Draco18s]

As it relates to gaming, the anti-hero has basically been reduced down to a guy who doesn't shave, who shoots first and has a hard time forming close personal relationships. I like a well-written anti-hero that occasionally makes me squirm in my support of them. Very few games actually have protagonists like that though. Renegade Sheperd is close, I guess.

Book for ya: Dragon Del Sangre.
Main character is a god damn jerk (and an almost immortal dragon to boot) and that's before the human munchy snacks.  He's also a CEO of a really big company, so he's well dressed, clean shaven, and handsome (although being able to choose your face and deciding to be a clone of all your favorite actors tends to do that).

So despite being clearly "evil" (not just misguided, but downright morally wrong) you want him to "win."

[nenjin]

Thanks, I'll put it on my list.

Ex of a anti-hero I liked: Altair from Assassin's Creed.

He's an asshole. That's....that's just it. He's rude, sniping, condescending....and none of that has to do with his in-game motivations. That's just who he is. And yet over the course of the game, he keeps getting confronted by situations that force him to address the humanity of it all, the cost of the conflict he's involved in. As he starts to care more, the dickishness and need to undercut everyone around him starts to go away. It's one of the more believable anti-hero, and anti-hero story arcs, I've run into in a game.

[Draco18s]

Thanks, I'll put it on my list.

Its the first in the series, which gets kinda crappy in the later books.  There's also a copious amount of sex.

But hey, for a quadriplegic author I'm not going to complain too much.

[ed boy]

Without an absolute standard, good and evil don't exist.

That's simple logical conclusion, factual and easily established. Either there is an absolute (read "non-debatable", "unchanging") standard, or there is no possible distinction between good and evil. All that is left is "good for me/you/us/them" and "bad for me/you/us/them". At that point, it's purely a matter of viewpoint: time, place, circumstances, and opinion.

I'm going to disagree with that statement. I personally agree with the belief that good and evil do not exist, but the statement above, that definitions of good and evil are either constant or subjective, is incorrect.

Take, for example, the average age of people in a country. That is not subjective, but it changes. You can define ages as 'old' or 'very old' depending on how they compare with the average. Even if the average age changes later on, the original definition that someone was old was correct when applied to that time.