Are we the games we play?

[DarkUnderlord]

1up, who stole the idea from MTV Multiplayer blogger "Stephen Totilo" (whomever he is), <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3167625">asked themselves "Are We What We Play?"</a>. Of course, such a question inevitably brings up RPGs:
<blockquote>On the other hand, I have played plenty of other games in which I most certainly have felt a certain identification with the character I was playing. Not surprisingly, this mostly tends to occur in role-playing games, especially (but not limited to) the kind in which I'm creating my own character from scratch. It's no coincidence that, given the option, I name my character the same name no matter what game I'm playing. I've been the same guy through 20+ years of gaming, regardless of genre. And that same guy has one constant trait: he can't be bad. If we're talking D&D, I'm always Lawful Good. I can't not be. Maybe it's my upbringing, maybe it's overcompensation for mistakes I've made in real life -- who knows. I just know that I actually feel uncomfortable with the notion even of being "chaotically good." Given the choice, I want my in-game character to do the right thing, always. My default class, given the choice? Paladin. The few times I've actually dabbled in making the "bad" or "wrong" choice, I always feel terrible about it and need to reload the game to an earlier save. The "choice" in BioShock was no choice at all to me: not saving the little sisters was too horrific for me to even consider.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3167625">The entire piece is actually four separate essays</a> from different people on 1up's staff and it touches on Oblivion, Final Fantasty and The Sims among other games.

So Codexer's are you what you play? Do you care? Are you stuck playing Lawful Good? Are all your choices and consequences always the same?

Discuss!

 

[Jabbapop]

I play however the game rewards me most. Which is usually always neutral good. (lol usually always!)

 

[Sir_Brennus]

That piece could've been written by me.

Since 1985:

Main char: Sir_Brennus, male, LG, Paladin (or equivalent)

One dimensional? Well, I may not know much about art - but I know what I like!

 

[kingcomrade]

I don't often murder people when the piss me off so no, I can't say my video game personas reflect my real life personality.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Paladins are boring and predictable. CN Rogues and Bards are way more fun to play.

 

[kingcomrade]

No doubt his idea of a CN character is zany antics 24/7

 

[caliban]

jewgonewild.com

 

[Ander Vinz]

I was stuck with good roles when I was a kid. But how can an adult person have problems with trying something different or deviant in a computer game - that's some serious mental defects right there.

And the whole trend of sharing shitty opinions through editorials is retarded.

 

[someone else]

I killed everyone in Ultima VI when I first played it when I was around 10 years old, what does that say about me?

 

[JarlFrank]

And that's why I'm always playing chaotic good in my RPGs. The good part is optional, though. Most importantly chaotic. Because I shit on laws and conventions ffs.

 

[Jasede]

I don't care either way as long as the writing is good.
It never is.

 

[Azrael the cat]

problem with deliberate evil

Wherever there is good/evil path I always choose good. Reason why? In reality NO-ONE deliberately chooses to be evil - in Hitler's warped mind he was the good guy. If Hitler was playing an rpg with an 'exterminate the Jews, gypsies, pollacks and slavs' option, he'd take it and then say 'of course I chose the lawful good option'. It's also one of the first things you get taught as an actor when you play a genre where there are traditional villains - never play 'evil', always think instead what kind of character would find those kind of actions to be good. Believing that something is the 'good' path and then choosing the opposite is kind of schizophrenic, more crazy than evil, and so I don't get a satisfying experience from playing it.

When games are a bit more realistic and give different choices over what your character views as good, with multiple choices being at least plausible (eg Deus Ex endings, where each were imperfect but had some justification, or The Witcher), then I'll often play differing choices, exploring the various paths. I also find myself far more likely to treat the choice as an important part of the gameplay - I agree with the guy who wrote that the little sisters bit of Bioshock didn't feel like a choice at all. Maybe if the little sisters were, at no fault of their own, contributing to some horrible disease or pollution, or were unwittingly leaching the player's energy, then there would have been a genuine dilemma, but as it is to kill them would be to utterly break immersion, intentionally choosing the decision that I believed to be clearly wrong. I'd be powergaming, in which case there's nothing gained by having the choice there at all.

However, when not powergaming, I'm not saying that oldschool good/evil choices are always bad - although I do think they are always less interesting than lawful/chaotic choices (which is partially why Torment was so good). When there's a good/evil choice I won't care about playing through both paths - but having the CHOICE to do so is still vitally important to me - for me there is a very different feel to CHOOSING a particular path, than being railroaded down it, even if I would make the same choice each time.

 

[BrainSquirmingLikeAToad]

hello world

 

[ghostdog]

Chaotic neutral, not obnoxiously good, neither ridiculously evil and with a bit of madness on top.

 

[Ander Vinz]

Re: problem with deliberate evil

When there's a good/evil choice I won't care about playing through both paths - but having the CHOICE to do so is still vitally important to me - for me there is a very different feel to CHOOSING a particular path, than being railroaded down it, even if I would make the same choice each time.

Will you be satisfied with the illusion of such choice since you won't try both paths anyway?

 

[Azrael the cat]

Re: problem with deliberate evil

When there's a good/evil choice I won't care about playing through both paths - but having the CHOICE to do so is still vitally important to me - for me there is a very different feel to CHOOSING a particular path, than being railroaded down it, even if I would make the same choice each time.

Will you be satisfied with the illusion of such choice since you won't try both paths anyway?

Depends. Following a particular path doesn't remove what is important to me about choice. Think about it - in real life you NEVER get to go back and do the 'opposite path', yet we consider that to be the pinacle of choice. Ok there are arguments about the non-existence of free-will and whatever, but insofar as we have ever have choice and consequences we have it more in real life than in any game. In some ways going back and playing both paths REMOVES the choice - because there are no consequences anymore, all possible options will be seen and mapped out in front of you. It stays multi-dimensional, yes, but no real choice - it is like Oblivion's lack of consequences (being the head of all guilds etc) at a meta-gaming level. Is there really that much difference between playing Oblivion and being head of all guilds in one playthrough, as opposed to playing the same game 4 times to be head of each guild?

I'm not criticising playing both ways - I understand that and can see why most people like that. But for me it isn't what I want about choice - I want to feel like what I do will have an impact on the game I experience, so that what I experience is as unique as possible and a reaction to my choices, rather than a culmination of many playthroughs that removes all mystery. I prefer not to use walkthroughs for that same reason.

So in that sense, even though I might not utilise every path, it still matters to me that they are there and choosable. In real life it would make a big difference if you KNEW that - due to fate, ingrained personality, upbringing, mind-control or whatever - you could never choose other than the path that you did. It would shatter all your notions of responsiblity, desert, justice, emotion - heck personhood for that matter. Even though you could, theoretically at least, set things up so that if you weren't told you'd never know (as you'd never 'choose' outside the set path). We can't go back and take multiple paths in life, we can't even do another playthrough - yet it would certainly matter to us if we suddenly discovered that (in a real practical sense, not simply bickering about metaphysical definitions of choice and causation) we had only the illusion of choice.

That doesn't mean I only have the illusion of choice - if anything it means I am enforcing REAL choice upon myself. What it does mean is that I am more easily fooled by games that only provide an illusion of choice. I probably won't go back to play the evil side, and so Bioware's fake choices may go unnoticed. On the other hand, I'll almost certainly play through each option that gave me a genuine moral / psychological dilemma, and so fake choices there become very much apparent. Ultilmately, my gaming choices are no more an illusion than real life free will is an illusion. Which is to say, maybe it is - after all we can't entirely 'choose' our personality, upbringing, environment, intelligence etc - but we still have everything that matters to us about choice.

 

[kingcomrade]

And that's why I'm always playing chaotic good in my RPGs. The good part is optional, though. Most importantly chaotic. Because I shit on laws and conventions ffs.

You should become a sk8erboi to let your wild rebellion and rebelliousness light the world. I too also shirk modern laws and conventions. I even got a speeding ticket recently.

 

[Texas Red]

I usually pick the options that provides the most enjoyment. This is usually through lols and not being a pansy. I think this stems from the fact that I view games as being fun, and when they're not fun, I tend not to play them very long.

If we're talking about any games in general and not just RPGs, then yes I believe my gaming preferences are a reflection of my life. Most days I usually travel to exotic locals, solve acrobatic puzzles, and battle dinosaurs in search of lost relics deep inside ancient tombs. The games I play the most are geared towards this.

That you pick nutty and lulzy dialog options is no surprise.

 

[Bar Tec]

Interesting thread. I tend to play good guy, but rarely lawful. Killing innocent people makes me feel uncomfortable, even if it's only a game But some trickery and looting as a mean to achieve greater good - that's OK for me.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

I am Fallout fan, above and all. I usually like to righten wrongs, but sometimes I like to go and try the darkside... sometimes, to do good, you must do a lot of bad things.

 

[Helton]

I am what I play about twenty minutes a day.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

I'm pretty lawful neutral IRL, but I've been playing an engineer in TF2 a lot lately, so interpret that as you will.

 

[Ander Vinz]

Think about it - in real life you NEVER get to go back and do the 'opposite path', yet we consider that to be the pinacle of choice.

Exactly. And that is why I do not agree with you. I can not tell about you but I am often curious and often have this little annoying "what if" concerning choices I made and about to make. We are mortal, we have only one life and have to deal with choices we made. We have certain roles in society based on our "personality, upbringing, mind-control or whatever" and we usually don't stray from them too much (unless drunk, ha-ha). But imagine for a minute that you have chosen to change your personality, profession or place of abode, imagine all consequences for this decision. *What if* you have chosen another solution for your REAL-LIFE dilemma? Isn't it worth exploring?

Let's get back to our simulated C&C (tm) aka role-playing games and let's not take bad examples like good/evil. I agree with your "ironman" approach and think it's childish to reload to see "what if I choose another line?" consequences. But after you played your personality (or favourite role) in this small fantasy world, aren't you curious to try something *different* and see how it comes off?

 

[Tychus Findlay]

First play throughs are usually as a "good guy" since I figure the designers design most of the game around that mindset and that's how I can see most of the content of the game and, damn, that's just how I roll IRL. I don't make myself play it that way, of course...I make the choices I want to make. Er that I think my character will make, that is. No really, I do. Or have my decisions been predestined? Shit...my free will...

Later playthroughs (if the game is worthy), will have me playing the vilest character I can think of which is inevitably one of you guys. (feel the love)


---
The C&C discussion in this thread brings up something I observed from the recent goings on at PA...this comic of theirs posted a few days ago:

and a recent podcast (at around the 12:25 mark)
http://feeds.penny-arcade.com/~r/padlc/ ... ession.mp3

(as an aside, I find myself preferring to listen to them rather than reading the stuff they make)

It almost seems as if Gabe did not want C&C in games because he's missing out on the "other half" and a second playthrough to get to the other half would be like a chore or that viewing of all of a game is like an achievement goal in itself for him or maybe that choice just being there bothers his perception of the character.

I mention this because I'm starting to wonder if this is the case with the "average" gamer or if designers have this in mind when they're designing (reminds me of old (I'm paraphrasing here...) "implementing choices increases game assets exponentially" Gaider or where designers mention that dialogue options are pointless since most gamers are only going to play the game through once).

Me, I'm pretty OCD with my games and like to see and do everything I can in them. Given that I only have so many hours to play games in my life and the length of some of these games, I'm fine with choosing what I want since I might not play through the game again, otherwise I'd go nuts or "paralyzed" as PA put it. If I do get around to playing it later on, I'll remember the choices I previously made and try to play it differently.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Lawful Good for the most part, Paladin archetype if available. Banishing evil, upholding the law, killing faggots, holding women in mild contempt, that kind of thing.

If the writing for LG characters is particularly atrocious (and it often is), i can do Neutral or even Chaotic, but never anything below Good. I tried evil in MoTB but couldn't make it past the first act, despite the fact it actually made the game more interesting.