So as we know, in SC2 WoL we can choose to take Raynor down the path of truth, justice and the Terran way, or we can take him down the dark side to fear, anger, hate and suffering.
When you get the game, which moral path do you think you'll go down?
Printable View
So as we know, in SC2 WoL we can choose to take Raynor down the path of truth, justice and the Terran way, or we can take him down the dark side to fear, anger, hate and suffering.
When you get the game, which moral path do you think you'll go down?
Evil is always interesting. But it never makes any difference. Somebody's going down, but it ain't gonna be me.
I'll be an evil conniving sunuvabitch that sells out colonists to save his own skin.
Well...on at least 1 playthrough...
They said that they wanted to fill the campaign with morally-difficult decisions, where you need to choose the lesser evil, so it's possible that the "good" path isn't that good anyways.
Still, i would choose the good path first, then when i play it again, i will go evil :)
That's what i did in Kotor 2, and i can say i LOLed with the evil path. The game was easy, and you're much more powerful that anything you're going to find, but it's very relaxed to play and funny, specially turning people against each other and all that shit :p
Both sides deserve to be played. It's a game, after all.
Good and evil, well after 50 playthroughs of getting every single mission / reward.
Well, from what I gather, it's not that Raynor either goes evil or good. The choice to cash in on some relics instead than save some random colonists, is not made out of an evil spirited raynor that goes "Hahaha, I want moneyz!", but the choice is made to avoid a mutiny on his ship.
Even though saving the colonists is more of a Raynorish thing to do (I'll be playing that for sure, the first time... ;P), doing the other isn't necessarily evil.
i might just play it once good and play it another time evil... if blizzard allows us to do that
I like the cut of your jib! Same here. I love playing through games being an asshole, why Fallout and Neverwinter Nights are so fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
I can't help but be the good guy. But honestly, I want the route that will grant me the most interesting characters and stories, and that will probably skirt the edges of Evil.
I don't see the purpose if you do multiple playthroughs. You shouldn't be good or evil and just see wht happens the first time, even though I thought this game wasn't really one of those good/evil types.
LOL. Toss-coin.
I totally play 'good' whenever I get these kinds of choices in games, and SC2 will be no different! ^________^
I always get sucked into being the good guy especially in Mass Effect, I would go into the game thinking Im gonna be this b*tch and end up with my paragon points all the way up :\
Isn't this a huge gimmick as it wont effect the story line at all? It's not going to change anything in any of the later games is it?
EDIT: And probably Evil. Raynor is a grumpy drunk!
There is no good or evil. There is only power and how you wield it.
So your still going evil?Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Of course :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Big shock.
Not sure yet. I enjoyed being a saint and bad ass motherfucker in Fallout 3 equally, and with the ending being the same mission no matter how you get there I've yet to decide
Yeah I did the exact same thing in ME. I didn't want to be good or evil, I just told myself I wouldn't care either way cuz it is a bit gimmicky. And then I found myself loading earlier saves to go through dialogue again because I accidentally said something that pissed someone off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Legion
My problem is how this system works is there isn't any ambiguity. You get 3 choices, the clearly good choice, the clearly bad choice, and maybe a neutral choice. There's no craftsmanship, why can't these choices be choice A , B, C? Where the most rational choice is usually the best choice or where A is good but it's not so overtly shown to be. Instead of creating moral conflict there are people who say, "I'm going to be a saint and do all the obviously good things." I think that's a huge failure that the Mass Effect and really every series has fallen to. Real leadership isn't about good or evil, it's about maximizing successful thinking and even if they really are trying to do a good or evil thing they're not putting the player in control, they're giving them a good/evil script.
How many times do you stop reading the choices and make sure you pick the good choice so you get another good bonus? There's a reward for being strictly good or strictly evil. Anyway, I don't think Starcraft 2 is going to get so into it and Raynor seems like a complicated character, kinda like Mal Reynolds from Firefly
Hey, in the ME games you get to punch people in the face and knock them out, be incredibly rude and get away with it. That was the fun part for me. But as for StarCraft, I'm not sure. It sounds like you get the option of doing evil things - like getting artifacts over saving colonists - but not to the same degree as Mass Effect; evil choice of mission vs evil action (punching people in the face, killing people in badass ways)/evil dialogue/etc. Unless I get to punch some people in the face and be a real asshole, I'll probably just have to wait and see.
That's what I don't like about Mass Effect. You have the neutral option, the 'evil' option, and the 'good' option. I want a variety of those. I want to have some choice. Do I shoot him in the face? Knock him out? Or insult him to the point where he attacks me and then I just kick his ass?
First I'm hearing about this. Always been a fan of moral dilemmas in a video game. And typically in these cases the easiest path is usually the path of evil.
The Problem with the Mass Effect wheel is you're given stat bonuses for following one path. Wheras with say, Dragon Age, you have a lot more choices all the time and the benefit to your character is minimal, while the benefits or drawbacks to your story are pretty huge.
"And typically in these cases the easiest path is usually the path of evil."
You're right, in Mass Effect. Where is the calculating evil? Why is it just solving the problem faster? I guess that's why it's called intimidation, right?
I'm also thinking of games like Fallout 3 and Black & White 2. It's so much easier going around stealing from everybody, killing people that get in your way, or bashing everything in with a boulder than it is choosing the path of righteousness. Also it's usually more fun :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hamshank
I think it all comes down to that famous idiom, "as a ruler is it better to be loved or feared?"
Evil, of course
The whole morality of character gimmick is a pretty big fad these days in video games. It even has a presence in RDR.
To be honest, while I dont think this would work with a game like SC where there are multiple characters
with very distinct personalities, I would like to see more games like GTA 3
where the protagonist is a silent observer of the characters around him/her. It works well in Zelda, too.
That's the thing. It's always easier to be evil than it is to be good. Which is why I give kudos to people who are actually good and not just because of 'it's the right thing to do'. They have a much harder time than evil people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazur
Same with Dungeons and Dragons. The DM I used to play with favored evil. It was pretty cheap because he didn't implement laws in the sense that yes, if you kill you will have to face the executioner's block for example. Good people had it harder because it was pretty much like there were no good people even though there were paladins and good-aligned clerics in every town. People would be like, "I'm so good at this game" and I would say, "Trying being good. See how hard that is!"
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
I'm going to try to be the people's man in my first run through. In my second run through I'll be the opposite.
i plan to be led astray by the evil spliff-smoking rastafarian
for you it's def. love.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
;D
Wait you can be good or evil? The hell? I thought this is linear...I thought the choices you make - are minimal at best - and are more or less completely disregarded in the ultimate scheme of things?
This isn't Fallout3..I don't think you can have the option of being Mengsks's messenger boy...or the people's hero...at least not in the same scope as Fallout3/ Dragon Age.
I usually go the purely benevolent path first in any game I play. I like the extra challenge it can provide, and in some games it's rewarding to see your reputation on a level that earns you the help from those you helped earlier in the game. However, after I complete the first round that way, I tend to go back and try alternate paths to see what I can get and/or lose.
In ME you get one good and one bad option, yet you have from 2 to 3 neutral options or at some situations even 4 as I recall
Is that a Sith talking?Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Like your avatar did? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by deadlock
I don't really care whether my raynor is good or evil. I'll pick whatever allows me to get the units I want most asap.
If one of them allows me to get BCs first, and the other Ravens, I'll go for the ravens for more fun. Same goes for ghosts, nukes, medivacs, firebats etc...
I don't really care for better bunkers and stuff.
If even my artillery is decided by that control panel where you buy stuff, well I'll just focus on making more cash ;)
I expect the Evil route to give you more cash, but if blizzard goes all cheesy, the Good path will get you some free rewards (like people joining up with you for free and stuff).
evil...what else...?
any objections...?