Curse

syronj · Mar 21, 2011, 05:33 PM // 17:33

This page seems applicable -- www.tvtropes.org is always interesting to check:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...veCondemnation

Hells Fury · Mar 22, 2011, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rites

Fable tried to throw morality into a fantasy game genre. all it accomplished was having players desire to be the ultra overlord of evil.

Ultra overlord of evil i need that title in gw2

In fable i spared only the sister (i read on walktru that sword you get after killing her sucks) and that wizard girl. Didn't even put the mask on in the end, cause why would i need anyone else in my head to rule the world.

Serious issue of god complex.

You wouldn't believe how much time i spent playing Populous when i was younger. In some worlds i wouldn't wipe opposing tribes, i'd make sure that all of them were balanced enough so i could watch them fight each other. Of course they all got destroyed in the end by my tribes.

I heard Postal was a fun game to play when it comes to morality but i never played it

Inasha · Mar 22, 2011, 12:57 AM // 00:57

It was when I was farming worn belts for nick in pre that I had a moment of "this is kind of messed up." I was killing humans, basically for profit. And sure, they're bandits. Or so I'm told. They just walk on by me, not trying to steal anything, not trying to harm me. I run up to them and just kill them. In fact, they must have some sort of mental disability, because as I kill them, the others just stand there, still not attacking me. And yet I slaughter them all.

Of course, this didn't bother me. It amused me.

I still think that the most immoral thing our characters do is forget about ascalon. The whole start of the game is about trying to fight off the charr, then bigger things come along and we just ignore it. If we've killed gods, then certainly we have the ability to wipe the charr from existence. But no, we have to honor our alliances with them. Lame. (Yes, I think that not going genocidal on the charr's asses is immoral

).

Shadow Sentinel · Mar 22, 2011, 01:42 AM // 01:42

At least I can wear one of their heads as a hat. It's blood stained and oh so comfy.

X Dr Pepper X · Mar 22, 2011, 06:19 AM // 06:19

I think its more immoral to perpetuate the brokenness of Speed Clears and abuse of Shadow Form, Ether Renewal, and to choose to sponsor ANet's marketing of Merc heroes.

syronj · Mar 22, 2011, 11:28 AM // 11:28

I like this page too: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...MeasureIsAMook

zwei2stein · Mar 22, 2011, 03:25 PM // 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inasha

And sure, they're bandits.

Actually, they are not. They are royalists that want to replace kind Abewhatshisname with Duke Gasomebody.

Basically, political opposition. Labeled as bandits and hunted down.

You are doing lying politicians dirty work.

And consideing how big douches king and his son were while duke was actually reasonably sane, nice job breaking it hero...

FalconDance · Mar 22, 2011, 04:07 PM // 16:07

IF Guild Wars was a role-play game, then 'morality' might be an issue. It is not, however (except for those who enjoy role-playing their characters - which is not supported by the game or storyline in any real fashion).

Deakon · Mar 22, 2011, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Morality? This is Sparta! It's kill or be killed. There's no time for therapy sessions when you're in the thick. Do your job, soldier! You can cry yourself to sleep after the job is done.

I hated DragonAge for that very reason and that one alone. Having to bribe and coax your "heroes" to keep them in a good mood was definitely a buzzkill. Red dots must die!

syronj · Mar 22, 2011, 05:01 PM // 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deakon

Morality? This is Sparta! It's kill or be killed. There's no time for therapy sessions when you're in the thick. Do your job, soldier! You can cry yourself to sleep after the job is done.

I hated DragonAge for that very reason and that one alone. Having to bribe and coax your "heroes" to keep them in a good mood was definitely a buzzkill. Red dots must die!

You have a point, but it's not always as simple as bribery in Dragon Age; at first, a character like Sten seems like more trouble than he's worth, but after you earn his respect in battle and talk to him, you learn his history. I liked having a party of NPCs in Baldur's Gate II, Dragon Age, and other games that allowed interaction with the NPCs.

zwei2stein · Mar 23, 2011, 10:15 AM // 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shady Guy

No, they are bandits as well as royalists, and while the low levels don't attack you, the ones that are lvl 3 and up want to kill you on sight. So only killing those low levels is immoral. As for Adelbern, sure he is a bit nuts after the searing, but what is wrong with Rurick? Aside from being a bit cheesy

I'd consider it desperate preventive strike. It is pretty much given you are going to attack them (along with your imp servant that will try to fry even non-aggresive ones)

And Rurik ... given his tendency to run ahead blindly, i can imagine his soldiers hating him a lot ... strategy? who needs strategy? chaaaarge!

Cursed by Grenth · Mar 23, 2011, 10:29 AM // 10:29

I suggest you read information about the Dynamic Event system in GW2.

They won't implement that here...

StormX · Mar 23, 2011, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Well it would be nice if the storyline wasn't so linear and if every npc out there didn't try to kill you on sight. Someone mentioned Baldur's Gate that one had a nice interactive quest system where you could take different paths and if u went loco and attacked green npcs in town the guards would come and kick ur ass (i think. my memory is a little fuzzy)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rites

personally i wish we were able to attack and possibly kill certain NPC's in game just for fun. i would love to lock blades against Panaku, slap Kormir around for her stupidity, and even knock some sense into that jealous wench elementalist whose name has slipped my mind.

I'll settle for being able to kill the base defender. god knows ive tried enough times

syronj · Mar 23, 2011, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shady Guy

Ok, agreed he is also not much of one for strategy, bit of a berserker. But a lying politician he isn't (at least that we see in the story).

Now, as for preventative strike... I'm a single person taking a walk through the fields/jungle/desert/anywhere, minding my own business and foes come charging after me, bandits included. I try saying just passing through, but they don't care. Hurts my character's feelings that everyone wants me dead.

I think GW 2 is going to be an improvement over the traditional MMO grind, even compared to GW (itself an improvement over WoW). Hopefully we'll have more plot, instead of hacking our way through patrols of giants/undead/raptors/ad nauseum. I know there's the main quest of each game in the series, but farming these mobs seems to be the only alternative to the various quests. GW 2 has 1000 dynamic events planned, by comparison.

wilebill · Mar 24, 2011, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Most online games, WoW, GW, Perfect World I know; are just touch football. No tackling allowed! If you want a game with consequences may I recommend EVE Online?

If you are complaining about violence per se, then for me at least there is no visceral violence in this game; nothing like the visceral violence you will see on prime time TV. Killing is merely appearance, nothing is getting hurt; they will be back as soon as the instance is reset or they respawn. Like a game of chess, the defeated pieces merely leave the board; they will return when you set up for the next game.

There are games with an Ironman mode. If your character gets killed, your character is really dead; permanently dead and no way to get it back.

On the whole I think most players prefer touch football. No tackling allowed!

syronj · Mar 24, 2011, 04:22 PM // 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilebill

Most online games, WoW, GW, Perfect World I know; are just touch football. No tackling allowed! If you want a game with consequences may I recommend EVE Online?

If you are complaining about violence per se, then for me at least there is no visceral violence in this game; nothing like the visceral violence you will see on prime time TV. Killing is merely appearance, nothing is getting hurt; they will be back as soon as the instance is reset or they respawn. Like a game of chess, the defeated pieces merely leave the board; they will return when you set up for the next game.

There are games with an Ironman mode. If your character gets killed, your character is really dead; permanently dead and no way to get it back.

On the whole I think most players prefer touch football. No tackling allowed!

Some good points there. I guess it's not the violence per se that I was remarking on, but the attitudes about killing tribes like the hekets, or creatures like the yetis to capture a skill. It sounds as if ANet is serious about a more "realistic" game in Guild Wars 2, so I'm looking forward to that.

A11Eur0 · Mar 25, 2011, 01:37 AM // 01:37

I miss the days where people played games because they were fun, and didn't speculate on the morality issues of it.

If you want to play a game with realistic consequences, there's always Second Life. For those of us with stable mentalities and the ability to distinguish between real and game worlds, there's everything else. Enough of this bleeding-heart sympathy for video game characters. If you don't want to play a game that has murder, torture, and other thematic elements, go play frogger.