What are some games where I can be a useless, indecisive retard?

What are some games where I can be a useless, indecisive retard?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=r63CsrHZGR8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I like how this image only uses games with shitty writing to try and prove its point
If a game makes you choose between 'good guy' and 'bad guy', chnaces are, the writing is bad
For fucks fable fable turns you into satan for eating chickens

Mass Effect 2 did it best, and punished you for trying to be neutral by requiring certain amount of paragon/renegade points to select the respective option, ie to resist Morinth you need to have gone pretty much completely Paragon or completely Renegade.

Plenty of grey choices too, the Geth heretic station being the greyest. An enemy with which there can be no diplomacy: do you introduce a virus to brainwash them to your side, robbing them of their free will, or simply annihilate them?

Your favourite video game you fucking piece of shit manchild

Real life.

>responsibally

being neutral isn't being indecisive

What I like is that it's fucking wrong. That's one of the main problems with Mass Effect, Paragon and Renegade change definition from case to case, and the picture even shows this: what's "renegade" about upholding the law?
There are many times when being "paragon" is more about eating crow and doing what is TECHNICALLY the more lawful thing, whereas "renegade" often stands for "act like a selfish cunt".

It is apathy though

God i hate these kind of people.
Not people who want to be neutral but rather people who force or shame people for not taking a side.
In politics its used to call Fence sitting and is used by leftis and conservatives to "take a side".

One of the reasons Sup Forums is so shit because everything left of them is seen as degenerate propaganda and leftists.
This is equally true for people who sit on the far left and shit on everything right from them.
They dont see that beeing centrist is the most reasonable way in democracy

Apathy is death.

Is that wrong?

Do you ever make posts where you arnt whining about something?

How is this troll thread getting replies?

Apathy is death.

>Playing good-guy in ME2
>Some jobsworth stopping me from going somewhere
>Choose renegade option, probably will just lie to him to get him out of the way
>kill him with a wrench

Jesus Christ Shepard

>what's "renegade" about upholding the law

It's renegade when you go full "means justify the ends"

this only happens in america because people honestly only think there's two possible political positions from the retarded two party system

There's a difference between being neutral and being moderate

Being neutral is about avoiding a conflict, whereas being moderate is about not blindly agreeing with any one side

You can be moderate and still hold strong opinions

>For fucks fable fable turns you into satan for eating chickens
That's fine though. Good and evil in Fable are actual game mechanics that affect your spells and gear. The game's style is very self-aware, so there's no immersion to break.

DnD alignments were a mistake

Thats right forgot to add this.
Only in America you can get shamed for not picking "your side".

Some people seem to think neutral means you don't ever have an opinion of your own or take a side. It usually means one of a few things. First being a sort of DND alignment context. It means you don't go all the way good, or all the way evil.

For example
The evil person Guy A, would be some mass murderer. Maybe they've even above the law. They are just out to hurt people, or just out for their own self-gain and that's it at the expense of everyone else.
Guy B is the "Good" guy, he's in fact so "good", that he refuses to kill a human being ever, no matter what. Because doing so would break the law and his moral codes. Even if the guy escapes again and again and murders more people when he could have prevented this. Guy B will argue he's not responsible for what Guy A does later.

Guy C, says Guy B is a retard. He breaks the law, and murders Guy A. These are technically evil actions, but they're done for a good purpose and save a bunch of lives in the future. He might occasionally do selfish things, but he also does good things in equal measure. While Guy B mainly does only things labeled good and avoids anything labeled "an evil act".

Everyone mistakenly hears 'neutral' and takes that to mean only impartial. It also means you do not particularly go far in any alignment spectrum. That sort of neutrality is less moral and more from a position of authority where you are required, or ethically should, be impartial when making judgments. Even in that case, it becomes your job to decide who is right, who is wrong. You take a side in the end, you are impartial so both sides have fair chance.

And the last way it can be taken as in completely not taking a side in a conflict, this is what some people seem to think it always means. But even then, they misunderstand it. Because it is not related to moral opinion, it is usually an economic decision, or self-preservation one. Or a more long-term play to save military power to attack later.

The good/evil scale is retarded to begin with

APATHY IS DEATH

>only on an american pedo comic fabrication forum can you get away with being an idiotic namefag

America is trash. Very subhuman.

>He's bound to a side

I want a game where the right choice is to be cruel to be kind.

Sure in the alignment sense it might make sense, but even then I'd consider neutral as making 'good' or 'evil' choices based on context.

So in the end a neutral character still makes choices one way or the other.

A true neutral decision is, as others already pointed out, apathy and therefore death.

>Bioware releases new games
>has the usual paragon/renegade options
>plus a new metter that you notice is filling during conversation
>character says something
>metter fills
>TRIGGERED!! flashes on screen
>Scene of companion characters visiting you at the hospital because you were so triggered you developed PSTD

youtube.com/watch?v=r63CsrHZGR8
It's been years since I played KOTOR2, why the fuck does literally everyone in the game say this line, what is the context for each individual character saying the exact same phrase

No a true neutral decision is deciding on a case by case basis what works best for you depending on your situation, in addition Apathy is death but only to other's, not necessarily you. If you see someone getting attacked it's not your responsibility to get involved.

Following the path of least resistance is the way of a neutral character and taking balanced steps to problems instead of relying on pure virtue or vice tends to be the absolute best way to deal with issues you face.

I did on ME only what I would do if I were there, and got a half/half alignement. Why? Because of course, you need to adapt to the situation.

>some guy asks me to help with a small problem. Options: Do it only by talking, or kill everyone, rob him, and tell him to fuck off

>bandit is killing and doing bad things. Options: Forgives him and lend him to the corrupt cops so he can get out and do it again, or kill him and finish the problem forever

Neutral is the best way.

WITCHER

It's "ends justify the means". Also the point is that it's not what the picture is implying.

Burroughs, scan this thread for signs of intelligent life.

I'm sorry, master. It appears that there are no other intelligent life forms on this thread other than you, since you were the first and only person to post SMT IV.

Paragon and renegade are retarded, and locking you of normal, logical actions for not being enough of a faggot or a cunt is shit

I love it when a game gives me the option to go blue & orange instead of good and evil

>retarded paint pic makes the complex standpoint with the most room for nuance seem stupid instead of the black and white, most simplistic options of good or evil.
Very convincing.

Well neutral isn't the worst, it's the karma cancels out thing. As long as you help enough old ladies cross the street you'd cancel out all the bystanders you shanked for giggles.

Personally I would prefer if more games featured morality based decisions that weren't clear cut good/evil. It would be nice to have some moral grey area and genuinely difficult decisions where someone is getting fucked either way and you as the player have to decide which group/person gets shafted rather than the usual.
>Be a dick
>Don't be a dick
>Be an indecisive pillock
>Be a massive dick