Sg3 on 7/3/2011 at 19:48
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I know they're not technically "people", but if you want to see large quantities of bodies being sliced, shot, and torn to shreds at once nothing beats dead rising.
But there's no moral enigma in putting stubborn corpses back down. Not much room for philosophizing, either.
Quote Posted by Manwe
Any open-world game released in the last ten years allows you to do just that. And they're not exactly hard to find considering it's probably the most widespread genre nowadays. Although not all of them might have been released on the PC.
Aye, the difficulty lies in me not being able to think of more than a handful! I can barely think of foods that I like when I go to the supermarket, so trying to think of examples of a specific kind of game when talking to a friend (or even upon reflection afterward), with my fuzzy memory, is troublesome.
Quote Posted by Manwe
As for trying to play Prototype like a good guy, and finding any form of moral choice in it... Er, I think you completely missed the point of the game.
So you're ok with playing a mass murdering psycho in Prototype or a cold blooded assassin in Hitman but you're repulsed by the idea of playing a petty criminal, albeit one with an actual personality and some attitude ? And GTA isn't up to your standards but Prototype is ?
Yep!
DDL on 7/3/2011 at 20:04
Quote Posted by Sg3
I don't think I even played
Mass Effect all the way through with an evil character (while I've done three or four play-throughs with compassionate characters).
Mass effect doesn't really have evil chars in the vein of "sith lord", about the best you can be is a bit of an asshole. Perhaps understandably (given that most people are not, on balance, "evil"), this actually leads to more interesting moral choices, in my opinion. Certainly more nuanced. KOTOR and co really are of the
>"Yes I'll help for free"
>"I'll help for a price"
>"DIE"
variety, whereas in the mass effect series you might have to decide between allowing hundreds of people to die while retaining a structural resource foothold on a colony world (so it can be repopulated) or saving the people but losing the foothold, preventing humans ever colonising that world again.
Certainly more thought-provoking than accidentally drifting a car through a herd of grannies, anyway.
Nameless Voice on 7/3/2011 at 20:18
Anything with multiple factions vying for power against each other.
Gothic 3 comes to mind. You can choose to "liberate" all of the cities in the game by killing all the orcs, or by killing all the human resistance, or perhaps you can find a more balanced, peaceful solution.
The Fallout games often have similar choices. Help one faction at a serious cost to another, or just be malicious to a faction for no really great reason. I think Fallout 1, 2, 3, and New Vegas all have at least some such choices.
Al_B on 7/3/2011 at 20:20
I think Populous was the first game that I played that really allowed you to "slaughter the masses". Most of the time it would be accidental by lowering the land a couple of clicks too far - drowning my citizens. I still felt guilty.
Wille on 7/3/2011 at 22:14
Mount & Blade games. You can even make your own "faction" that emphasis on terrorizing local population and weak people :p.
AltF4 on 8/3/2011 at 00:01
I'll second Syndicate.
You could slaughter the masses in any number of interesting ways - watching pixellated sheeples run around on fire screaming after indiscriminate use of the flamer or a timebomb near a crowd was particularly satisfying. In Syndicate Wars, blowing buildings up would flatten any of the unfortunate mob underneath.
Even more fun was brainwashing large groups of the citizenry to be your mindless bodyguards - they would pick up fallen weapons and happily shoot your enemies on sight or sacrifice themselves to save you. On a moral level (not that I was thinking about this at age 11), this was slightly less psychotic than simply incinerating the general populace, as you could tenuously argue that at least they had a fighting chance.
The game would also reward you when you disposed of criminals, slightly raising the moral of the population for the area you had just taken control of. So, you could always slaughter the RIGHT type of general population, and feel good about it (or at least reduce the chances that the population of this area would revolt, forcing you to deploy more agents to this area and hence, more slaughtering of said citizenry...)
Ah, what a game...
Sg3 on 8/3/2011 at 01:20
Quote Posted by Wille
Mount & Blade games. You can even make your own "faction" that emphasis on terrorizing local population and weak people
Oh, how silly of me! I forgot about
Mount & Blade because it made me feel that I should be nice to the peasants, and so I always was, to the point that I don't remember it for a game where you're allowed to slaughter the people. Christ, though, sometimes those cattle missions made me pretty sore at them. "No, my lord, we're very sorry, but eight free cattle isn't enough. We require nine free cattle, my lord, or we will be less happy with you than if you had given us none, my lord." Almost tempted to let the bandits have their stinking village.
gunsmoke on 8/3/2011 at 11:29
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I dunno, I liked it. It was stupid and brainless but kind of fun.
Did they ever release a sequel?
