Take a look at damn near every action/adventure/rpg out there. See a trend? That''s right, it''s always some ''good'' guys fighting ''evil'' guys. Are there any games out there which break this cycle? Is this a viable idea for game development? What do you think?

This is viable, although the concepts of good and evil are centered around specific characteristics. It''s entirely possible to have guys that aren''t good or evil, but have different motives driving them. Being greedy doesn''t mean someone is really evil. Or when two ''good'' cities fight, they each believe their own cause is worth fighting for. A player can choose sides according to which he believes is ''right''. A game doesn''t have to be centered around beating the ''bad guy''. The goal could be to discover something such as an artifact, the cure for cancer, etc... There are plenty of things you could do to break the cycle.

Three words: Dungeon Keeper Two.

Being evil is fun sometimes, and DK2 was a great example of the fun in being evil... You created a dungeon full of monsters, beat and tortured them to get them to work harder and act meaner, and slaughtered any dumb adventurer who happened to wander in searching for treasure.

Being evil is an excellent concept for a game, although you''ll be considered particularly reprehensible among those who think games cause violence, craziness etcetera. Being destructive is also great fun - who doesn''t want to be Godzilla sometimes? In Blastcorps 64, you used various demo vehicles to knock down buildings impeding the path of a misdirected robotic truck carrying armed nuclear warheads: destructiveness for a constructive purpose!

I''ve had a recurring idea for a demolition duel game: you are a tremendously powerful human sized entity attempting to beat up another such entity. In order to keep your opponent still long enough that you can use your strongest attack without interruption, you try to knock a building down on him and pin him under the rubble. A good physics engine would be very necessary for this game, in order to accurately simulate the behavior of collapsing buildings... of course in light of recent events, this game would be somewhat less than politically correct.

So yes, evil has been done before, and yes, it''s a good idea, but no, you won''t exactly be popular for making such a game.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

quote: Original post by falsk
Take a look at damn near every action/adventure/rpg out there. See a trend?
That's right, it's always some 'good' guys fighting 'evil' guys.

Are there any games out there which break this cycle?

Is this a viable idea for game development? What do you think?

You apparently haven't played Soul Reaver 1 or 2. In Soul Reaver 1 you kind of start as a good guy hunting bad guys. Eventually though, the main character's focus changes as he comes upon a few mysteries. The entire Soul Reaver 2 game has absolutely no clearly defined good or evil. The main character is interested only in his personal goals, which is to seek out the truth about his past and his world.

During his quest he is basically lobbied by a bunch of different characters into doing what they want him to do, who each say they're the "good" guys. However, no character in the game (including the main character) is a clean-cut "good" character. Every one has a little of both in them, and most importantly they all have their own goals which is not some cliche nonsense like to "take over the world" (though I must admit it worked well in Pinky and the Brain )

There are games like that out there, just not a lot of them. And it certainly is very viable to do this in games. The problem sometimes is lack of creativity of the story writers, and also the fact that they often don't have a lot of freedom with their writing due to the rigidity of the game itself (like you wouldn't have a great story in a racing game generally). The latter however, is a poor excuse in some cases. For instance, FPS games could definitely have a story, look at Half-Life.

Edited by - Supernova on January 18, 2002 12:24:47 PM

'Pondering' over the design of a game once I had an idea where the character was not necessarily good or bad, but would be molded through player decision throughout the game. However, creating the good and bad variations led to two drastically different stories, and I was left with typical good guys fight bad guys and bad guys fight good and bad.

I have heard of DK2 but I was more interested along the lines of an rpg of sorts, and whether or not it was a good idea to be making a game where the player assumes an evil role for the express purpose of evil. Sort of like playing an rpg from the boss's standpoint.

I have only played about 30 minutes worth of Soul Reaver in my life, though

Edited by - falsk on January 18, 2002 12:46:31 PM

Come on guys. This is a bad idea from the start. One main weakness of any story is saying "This guy is evil, this guy is good." and so on. A character shouldn''t be defined by such broad, and overused, characteristics. I rather like the ideas a few of you have put about characters not being defined as good or bad, but rather, each having his or her own motivation and acting on those for self interest. In fact, isn''t that how we all are in real life?

--Vic--

One plan I had in mind was to let the player decide all the actions, but it''d just be hard to do anything we consider good. Set it up in such a way that it''s not obvious to the player that they''re taking the load road until at the end.

i am currently working on my RPG, which allows a lot of freedom as far as what the player does and how he behaves. the player chooses a cause from good, evil, chaos, or order (not extremely original, but i''m hoping to put some new twists in here), as well as other things. then, throughout the game, they can do as they please; of course, if they stray too much from their "declared" alignment it might not go over too well with the gods, NPCs, et cetera... i might allow them to switch sides completely, but i''m not sure on that one yet (as that would require the NPC "nemesis" character to switch as well, unless i have extra "nemesis" characters to spare).
point being, i do have the good versus evil thing going on, but the player can choose to be evil instead of the standard "good guy hero" that most (not all i know) games allow for. alternately, they can play for the causes of order or chaos also, who are diametrically opposed but have nothing to do with good/evil at all (chaos involves both creation and destruction, regardless of good/evil-ness; order is the same way with regards to preserving and improving what chaos creates, and protecting it from chaos'' naturally destructive force).

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

I think we are still being limited in our view here.
We''re talking about how cliche it is to have good vs evil. Some of us go on to make tweaks to that formula, but it is still there. Not know what good or evil is, or just using the "lesser evil" of some choices sounds very similar.
I think we can learn something from literature, and take some other archetypes as the main story:
http://tn.essortment.com/literaryarchety_rabl.htm

quote: Original post by Roof Top Pew Wee
Come on guys. This is a bad idea from the start. One main weakness of any story is saying "This guy is evil, this guy is good." and so on. A character shouldn''t be defined by such broad, and overused, characteristics. I rather like the ideas a few of you have put about characters not being defined as good or bad, but rather, each having his or her own motivation and acting on those for self interest. In fact, isn''t that how we all are in real life? --Vic--

Wouldn''t that depend on whether you were doing a FPS or an RPG? In an FPS, the storyline assumes certain traits because you have to fit into the plot of the story. In and RPG, you are generally allowed the freedom to do what you will and become what you will.



Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development