Why do most people who play video games choose to be moralfags?

Why do most people who play video games choose to be moralfags?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9nUjV5xDqVg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why do some people who play video games choose to be an edgelords?

Most people self insert

Fuck off edgelord degenerate.

A lot of people self insert and a most people are not videogame villain level dickbags.

The fear of consequences and utter lack of imagination.
The latter also contributes to people doing 100% good and 100% evil playthroughs with zero variation. The average AAA consumer these days is unable to come up with a moral hierarchy for the character they roleplay as, unless it's a cardboard copy of themself.

I don't want to hurt the nice virtual people. They're the only friends I have.

>Try to be evil.
>Become an asshole within the first hour.
>End up being straight up moralfag before being even halfway through the game.

Every single time!

>friend invites me over to play some HD games
>he puts Skyrim on like a total wanker
>asks me if I want to play
>do the tutorial and get to the next town
>kill a chicken
>this sets off the whole town
>slaughter everyone while hiding behind my crutch healing magic
>he turns the console off because I "wasn't playing properly"
I found out later that he can't bring himself to go evil at all unless it's for achievements.

Playing good in games often rewards you with quests, items or some other shit.

Because good/evil routes in videogames are always stupid black or white shit like "SAVE the baby or EAT the baby??"
And being an edgelord character is for 13 year olds.
I'd much rather have, say, the percantage of people that choose chaos/neutral/order in nocturne

Most choices are between
>help people, good things happen to you, happy ending and everyone loves you
>be a dickhead to everyone and ruin shit just because
Why would you want to shit on people for no reason?

They're adults.

Your friend is a faggot

Games almost always reward 100% evil or good playthroughs. If you do neutral shit, you end up missing out on best stuff.

It's usually more rewarding.

To be evil, all you have to do is kill people and ruin shit.
To be good you actively have to help people and earn their trust and respect.

It's more satisfying in most videogames.

>HD Games
Are you like 12?

Because usually games reward moralfaggotry more than anything else with getting the best endings and the most sidequests.

cmon now

I usually come up with a character idea in my head first and then play that. Usually good or neutral, but I'll go full evil if the game lets you do over-the-top edgy shit, or if it has mustache-twirling cartoon villainy

fallout 3 for example
>won't blow up megaton
>do this because I would lose content
>won't murder scavengers
>might need them later and also losing content
>hate killing named npcs because losing content
anyone else?

As it should be. Neutrals deserves nothing.

Eat shit, fag

>tfw genuinely enjoy playing evil characters regardless of how black and white and over the top it goes
I cant slaughter people and be an asshole IRL, I can in vidya.

Why does the average AAA consumer even need to come up with a moral hierarchy for the character they roleplay as? The reason people play these kinda games is to put themselves into fictional circumstances, to explore their own real life character and to see the message that the devs prepared in effect personally to them in the form of in-game consequences of their choices. I'd say it's the bullshit roleplaying way you're promoting that's deviant and unnatural.

>I can't slaughter people and be an asshole irl
You can

Videogame writers can't write evil characters, all evil routes are written like the character is a cartoonish chaotic evil mustache twirling satan reincarnation that would ruin lifes for funsies.

Nah, I did everything evil in fallout 3 and I dont give a rats ass how many quests go with it, theres always other playthroughs.

Fuck your bait, post the best endings in games where you have multiple endings. inb4 neutralfags shit up the thread

youtube.com/watch?v=9nUjV5xDqVg

Last Bethesda game I played was Oblivion

>super edgy Argonian assassin character
>go around killing as many non-essential characters as I can get away with
>later in the game, try thieves guild quest
>"go to this town and talk to one of the beggars for info"
>literally 0 beggars left alive when I get there
>have to look up a guide on how to finish the quest

The worst thing you can do is add a point system to it. Once people see a little meter tick in a certain direction every time they take gold off a table, they stop doing it. I think the whole appeal of evil is that you can get away with as much shit as possible by being selfish and it's rewarding if you do. I think the Witcher is the only game Ive seen that didn't totally fuck this up. It was nice to see my choices not always end a certain way I wanted them to, and I did find myself occasionally killing innocents if it totally suited me/if I really thought some people needed to be put in the dirt.

Yeah, once, then I either gotta an hero or spend time in jail with no fucking vidya.

It really isn't entirely the consumers fault. Games lend themselves to these absolutes lines of morality so easily.

If you want characters with nuanced moral hierarchy, you need situations to compel them away from being good.

Why should I help these bandits if I'll make more money saving this town and having people to trade with even while playing someone who'll demand a reward after the fighting is done or do some work with the local corrupt officials?

>hg games
>Cmon now
You can't be real. Now I know this is bait.

>tfw evil routes always are overdone but never to the point where it gets so exagerrated it loops back into being fun

Because "evil" choices in games are 99% shit for you. There's almost no benefit to doing so and more often than not it's just some retard shit like
>grr I'm mean I'm going to kick this puppy for no reason and then the puppy won't help me in a later event
or
>I'm going to say a mean thing to you to make you give me money even though had I said a good thing you'd have rewarded me with money anyway.
or
>None of my choices up to this point ever actually had any long-term consequences, so even though I've been a goody two shoes the entire time, I'm going to pick the evil choice here just so I can get the evil ending

>not playing at least twice with different choices
casuals

for a first playthrough, i usually do in game what i think about doing afk.
if i like the game and go for multiple playthroughs, then i'd roleplay as other things

>once
casual

Because not every game is SMT where you actually can make a good choice either way.
Most games have the black or white decision, with one being clearly bad and the other being clearly good. So you can either be a total douchebag or a savior.
In SMT you can follow evil or good and do what you think is best for everyone either way.
SMT IV even puts you in the position where helping the Law means keeping everything in order, but also helping a faggot that want to rule tokyo by using people as food for demons, while following the chaos allows you to fuck up said faggot, but also puts on the line the lives of many others, so you have to concretely think about the consequences of both decisions.

Are you autistic?

>Being mean in a video game

They should make a game where the pros and cons of being good or evil are more pronounced. Like being good gets you more reputation and social standing, but evil nets more material wealth.

Or maybe evil is just more profitable but the punishment for breaking the law is severe and hard to avoid.

Because most games are designed with going 100% in one direction, you always miss good content going neutral.

To be honest the best game for branching moral paths was Shadow the fucking Hedgehog

Most of the "evil" paths are just being an asshole while the "good" decisions are just not being an asshole. If the writing in the game was less pretentious i would probably pick evil more often. The only game i really remember "evil" being written halfway decent was KOTOR and KOTOR 2.

Law and Chaos are not equivalent to Good and Evil.

Because you have to grow out of being a misanthrope. I want to get along with people, being a dick for the sake of it wears off once you're out of your encyclopedia drammatica stage.

This

a truly good evil choice would be like
>you decide to build a factory and mislead the local populace about the chemicals being dispersed into the water supply, you will make a lot of money but some people will get cancer. You will never be held accountable for your actions.

>being a generally good person is a bad thing
typical Sup Forums

Why does everybody despiseems dramatica? Only been on a couple times, but I do enjoy a site that is blatantly angry to literally everything just for the sake of it. That's basically why we're all on here. Also
>this is the first thread I've seen not devolve into shitposting on /v for months

making 'evil' choices almost always means losing out on more of the game because there are fewer 'evil' quests. Or you'll piss off everyone and lose any meaningful interaction with them. Or you'll piss off literally everyone because your evil deeds are somehow transmitted via psychic waves and nobody will want to deal with your character even if they've never met you.

Also evil routes tend to be less rewarding and more poorly written. Often the 'bad' choices are just 'greedy'. Often the 'good' routes are longer because you have to go do something like "beat some bad guys" whereas the evil route is "go beat some harmless babies resting in their cribs".

There's tons of other reason but those are just the top ones I can think of. Just in general, evil routes aren't worth playing because the game designers don't put much time or effort into them.

>but evil nets more material wealth.
This really doesn't work. Social standing is worth more and there are other ways to make money.

Fable 3 tried to do the whole, "if you're nice people will like you, but you won't have money to fight the big bad. Do the opposite, and people will hate you, but they'll be alive" thing.

So what does this mean? Well, people liking me means they give me gifts and free stuff, so I did some ingame part time jobs, build up some cash, proceeded to buy every house in the kingdom, kicked rent up to max while everyone loved me, saved everyone, then gave everyone free rent and stopped charging tax. You need a very tight control on cash and what it can get you if you want money to be a serious reward when a little hard work can get you the best of both worlds.

The only times I really pulled of a true neutral character was in Baldurs Gate 1+2 enhanced edition.
Having all the new characters and Viconia forced me to be a fucking psychopath. Taking rewards for doing the best possible thing for each questgiver no matter what moral standarts it might imply, though mostly moralfaggery but also murdering innocent people to keep my reputation low enough for Faggot Orc, the Vampire and said dark elf.

Atleast I finally got to kill that silver dragon in the underdark.

>thinking the" -fag" addition to words is necessarily a bad thing
I don't think youve been on here long enough to know typical Sup Forums, newfriend

Pick your threads better.

And no, not a lot of people are here to be angry. This is an enthusiast forum, and most anger is the result of either debate or frustration.

The "RAGE" twits are just teenagers and manchildren.

I'm somewhat fond of Bioware style cartoon villainy, as seen in Jade Empire.
>NPC: Thank god you're here! There's some bandits over there, they ambushed our merchant group. Please help!
>Choice A: Of course, I'll save your friends! Lead the way!
>Choice B: A weakling who runs away deserves to be killed! Die!
And no, it's not an ambush or anything, his friends were really attacked by bandits.

>this is the first thread I've seen not devolve into shitposting on /v for months

I've seen multiple threads today that didn't devolve into shitposting

>encyclopedia dramatica

Haven't been there in many years (probably since 2006 or earlier) but I think a major reason 4channers dislike it is, it keeps a catalogue of popular memes and explains them to outsiders. Kind of like how everyone here dislikes Reddit and Knowyourmeme. Knowledge of memes or lack thereof is supposed to be a Sup Forums shibboleth and channers hate it when they're made too accessible.

Infamous is worst for this, especially with some of the later games choices being better yet non-canon.
>Go fuck up the anti-conduit propaganda group and kill their leader before hooking up with Fetch
>Go blow up some boats and that's about it

As an evil person, I'd rather not shit where I'll rule one day.

Keeping my city a shining beacon will bring in cash on it's own and it'll look nice. Keep heavy industry for other people's lands or well away from population centers. Those people with cancer need to be productive and fight in my armies.

Because videogame writing is bad. Being evil just equals to being a genocidal maniac.
There is no logical realistic reason to be evil in videogames unless it's either "I want the evil route reward that is mutually exclusive (eg. powers and waifu in infamous 2) or "I already did everything else, so might aswell fuck stuff up for funsies (most rpgs). Most games have no in-universe reason to be a cunt. There's no temptation.

I agree that I don't pick good threads here, which is why I've moved boards for the most part, but that didn't really answer the question. You just re-expressed that you don't like RAGE through ad hominem

Because the evil path most often is written like shit.
> Be an arrogant illogical jerk for no reason

Because they lack a sense of humour, or perhaps they just don't rejoice in schadenfreude.

If you're not malevolent, then you're just a regular egomaniac.

>Be an arrogant illogical jerk for no reason
Have you never met an asshole in real life.
Go outside more user.

>Why do most people who play video games choose to be moralfags?

Because fucking nobody is evil for the sake of being evil, that's not how being evil works.

You're evil for personal benefits, you put yourself before others, being good is the reward in itself. But often in games it's-

GOOD CHOICE
Angel Sword+everybody loves you!

EVIL CHOICE
Demon Sword+everybody fucking hates your goddamn guts.

That's not how it works.

People are naturally good.
If you aren't you should be removed, because you are clearly defective.

Because being a decent human being comes naturally to most, even in the virtual world.

I've seen them, and most of the time there's a perfectly logical explanation for why they are assholes - trauma, stress, previous bad experiences with a certain group etc.

>People are naturally good.
Then why do they do bad? Ignorance?

That makes more sense. I always attributed it to being 1d4chan for memes, and I honestly read 1d4chan for leasure. Something about 4chans take on 40k fluff is the funniest goddamn thing to me, and the info is pretty solid too

Malevolence balanced with practicality, but feel free to use whatever label you prefer. Now fetch me those foreign slaves I ordered. I'm ready for lichdom.

No shit my distaste for a fucking emotion is expressed through ad-hominem, it's a fucking emotion. I hope you weren't expecting an academic dissertation, you dumb shit.

I hate rage for the sake of rage faggots because they shit up discussion into shitposting and blandly expressing epithets over shit they claim to despise but can't stop discussing. Sad fucking cyclical discussions that went nowhere and did nothing for years on fucking end.

ED was part of that cycle. Do I have a single fucking citation for that? Of course the fuck not.

Course you're a fuck crossboarder. Get the fuck out of here. Go fuck off to whatever board you moved to. "First thread in months" you little shit I bet you only posted in console war threads like the cancerous fuck you are.

Because games often lock things behind the moral choices, being neutral giving you nearly none of the upgrades, whilst 100% good or bad giving you the best upgrades, but in general making good just all that much better because the devs themselves are moralfags. Not to mention the evil playthrough is often riddled with cringeworthy dialogue.

Yeah okay reddit, everyones just misunderstood poor things who do no wrong, fuck off now.

99.9999% of games have shitty evil routes with awful writing that block out half the game and awful rewards, so there's no roleplay or rollplay reason to ever take them.

>do quest
>pick good route
>get one of a kind powerful magic artifact worth 9999999 gold and reputation boost that unlocks more quests and discounts

>pick evil route
>get 100 gold

Every time.

>bad
From my perspective, the children were evil.

If there was one answer to that, philosophy, justice, law, and sociology wouldn't be so damn confusing and up for debate

Because most people who play video games are normalfags.

Consider driving down a street with people along the sidewalk. Most people would never even ponder what would happen if they just drove down the pavement and ran over pedestrians. Bill Burr, yes.

People are capable of justifying anything to themselves.

It's more true to say that very few people believe they are doing bad. No-one (apart from a few edgelords) willingly does evil.

Spot on. If you kill an NPC, theres a slim chance you may lose content. I'm a perfectionist when I play RPGs, so I never kill anyone that I don't need to kill. I would also add, it can dampen the immersive feeling in a game. If you kill all the NPCs in a village, it ruins the immersion as the setting of RPGs is often highly influenced by the characters which inhabit it. Removal of ambient conversations taking place between NPCs actually does a great deal to make a game less enthralling in my opinion.

Because most people who play video games are humans with empathy which is triggered regardless of whether the scenario is real or not.

Depends on the game to be honest.

In New Vegas it just felt right to not be a dick in that world, and it's probably the most profitable in terms of quest availability / rewards.

In a lot of games actually you don't get as much out of the plot by just always taking the most negative route every time, it closes parts of the game off and becomes stale pretty quick.

>haha he wants my help I'm just gonna kill him and take all his stuff xppppp

Thank you for responding

skyrim on console....

>most people
Everyone has intrusive thoughts.

I was playing this Neverwinter Nights module that really bothered me with this. I wasn't even playing a super evil character either, just a chaotic neutral sorceror.

At one point you encounter a demon holding a bunch of people hostage. He promises you great power if you help him by preparing a special elixir for him to drink. Choices include:

>go along with his plan in exchange for "great power" which ends up being 1700 xp
>fight him and save the hostages (5000 xp)
>pretend to go along with his plan but spike the elixir with holy water so you can easily kill him and save the hostages (5000 xp)

There was another module where a demon is about to kill some asshole you have no reason to like. You can either allow the demon to kill them, or appease the demon by offering it 10% of all the exp you earned up to that point. If you pick the good option you basically lose an entire character level for nothing, since the character you save fucks off shortly afterward.

Playing evil route in RPGs is basically easy mode and potentially cut you off from lots of content.

Can't be arsed reading through the thread to see if this has already been posted but...
>Evil routes are usually an afterthought or just put in for the hell of it, and because of this the quality drop is clearly visible.
>Evil routes give you worse rewards, which is fucking retarded if you actually think about it.

The good routes are just overall better, with way more options and work put into them. It's a sad and unfortunate truth.

its fairly simple
in the vast majority of games the evil options are objectively the worst options thus even an evil character would have no need to actually do those evil actions.

I mean take all the rpg's where evil rewards you money, which you already have plenty of while good rewards you with a unique item or bonus

in games where evil actually has a tangible benefit, like say a good deal of management or strategy simulators, you'll see a significantly larger portion of the players willing to perform those evil actions

The best way to play Mass Effect is to choose your dialouge as quickly as you can based off your made up bias's Shepard has.

EG my Shepard was horny as fuck and I basically agreed with every (attractive) female character on everything but hated anyone who tried to assert authority over me (fuck you Illusive Man).

I also did every single "paragon/renegade cutscene interupt" just to keep things fresh. Hugged Tali AND threw that guy out the window.

Well I'm not an evil person (I think) and I try to just do what I do in real life.

>leasure.

>Good
>Best ending, usually best powers, get cool allies
>Evil
>Usually get a shit ending, mediocre powers and all the cool characters leave
Very few games make being a dick rewarding.

They need to cut morality points out completely

no more +100 good guy points or +100 edgelord points

you make your choices and see what happens, game doesn't tell you whether what you did was good, bad or somewhere in between (outside of character reactions/dialogue of course).

especially being able to know which options are good or bad before selecting like mass effects bright blue/red paragon/renegade choices.

While i'm not a fan of how some of my choices affected my game in Witcher 3 I liked the way you could unintentionally fuck shit up by picking certain choices.

>AND threw that guy out the window.
Everyone threw that guy out the window. I'm not sure they planned for anyone to not to, I didn't do it the first time around and it's just the saddest fucking anticlimax, he just shrugs and leaves.

...

>help someone
branching dialog, rewards, exp

>kill someone
loot them for a little gold and level 1 meme clothes

I wonder.

an NWN2 module that's pretty darn good about portraying intelligent evil is (surprise surprise) the Path of Evil module which is essentially about playing an upstart evil overlord.
Plenty of evil options around but the difference lies in just how much benefit you get from them. Like say you can help a typical evil chancellor to gain control over a town for cash, then when you yourself gain a bit more power and influence come back and flat out tell him he works for you now because you know every single one of his dirty little secrets.
Doing this actually gives you several benefits

Most people who play video games nowadays are just dumb dudebros who don't know how to roleplay.