Support NeoGAF

[Sblargh]

You find a briefcase on the street. There is 1 million dollars there! You lose nothing by keeping it, but, at the most, receive a % as a reward for giving it back to its owner.

On games, otoh, there is almost no sacrifice involved in being good. I kept wanting to make a horrible human being as a New Vegas character, one who would eventually ally himself with the Caesar's Legion, but then, it's like finding a briefcase with 10.000 dollars on the street, giving it back to its owner and receiving a million dollars reward for your trouble. Being good usually means getting a lot of rewards, being loved by almost everyone (often everyone that matters), getting access to the best quests and having an easier life in general. On other words, being altruist on games involves a lot less self sacrifice than being an egoist.

Is there any games where being good involves missing out on important loot or making powerful enemies (because you are protecting the less weaker)? Is there any game that gives you the choice of self sacrifice (not only as an ending) in order to roleplay an actual hero?

 

[TheMoon]

inFAMOUS 1 because playing good Cole is boring as fuck. (the reverse is true in inFAMOUS 2)

Probably not what you're looking for but that immediately came to mind.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

I wanna say KOTOR 2 at the very least had some interesting twists on that concept. I agree with you, games reward you for doing "the right thing" all too often, so much so that..why even consider the "selfish" or "bad" option? If it's a matter of short-term gain vs long-term gain, then I think gamers are just too used to it by this point and come to realize the latter will ALWAYS be more beneficial.

It's why, despite my own moral compass, I ALWAYS play a good guy in games with moral choice. Because I'm so used to realizing "this is better in the long run anyway". I think the Original Fable also mixed it up a bit, if I'm being honest.

 

[Glowsquid]

the 2nd Army of Two has "moral choices" segments where what seens to be the "good" option almost always turn out to be invalid or worse than the alternative for ridiculously contrived reasons (ex: you ignore a request to execute a contact, but someone else kills him anyway so you don,t get the money. You can spare a guard but he turns out to be an asshole selling weapons to the terrorists... etc). It's kinda funny.

 

[Remachinate]

Dishonored does this very well in my opinion. Most of the powers and items are oriented towards a violent playstyle, so players have to make a ludic sacrifice and use a more limited toolset to play nonlethally and get the "good" ending.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

Dishonored does this very well in my opinion. Most of the powers and items are oriented towards a violent playstyle, so players have to make a ludic sacrifice and use a more limited toolset to play nonlethally and get the "good" ending.

I think there's a fair point there. in Deus Ex/Dishonored/MGS I always go non-lethal when given an option.

 

[NeoFaff]

Dunno, Alpha Protocol? Then again why wouldn't you seduce every woman in the game?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Not exactly the same idea but Civilization games actively become more difficult if you try to coexist with everyone. You are better off just trying to steamroll everyone in your way, or at the very least contest every landmass for resources even if you don't really need them.

 

[5taquitos]

You won't get anywhere in EVE Online by being a fair and truthful player.

Edit: I guess this doesn't really apply to the OP, ignore me.

 

[Sblargh]

I wanna say KOTOR 2 at the very least had some interesting twists on that concept. I agree with you, games reward you for doing "the right thing" all too often, so much so that..why even consider the "selfish" or "bad" option? If it's a matter of short-term gain vs long-term gain, then I think gamers are just too used to it by this point and come to realize the latter will ALWAYS be more beneficial.

It's why, despite my own moral compass, I ALWAYS play a good guy in games with moral choice. Because I'm so used to realizing "this is better in the long run anyway". I think the Original Fable also mixed it up a bit, if I'm being honest.

I remember one decision on the beggining where being good or evil resulted in bad things happening, maybe there was more.

the 2nd Army of Two has "moral choices" segments where what seens to be the "good" option almost always turn out to be invalid or worse than the alternative for ridiculously contrived reasons (ex: you ignore a request to execute a contact, but someone else kills him anyway so you don,t get the money. You can spare a guard but he turns out to be an asshole selling weapons to the terrorists... etc). It's kinda funny.

Surprisingly good example, even if it is done as comic relief.

Dishonored does this very well in my opinion. Most of the powers and items are oriented towards a violent playstyle, so players have to make a ludic sacrifice and use a more limited toolset to play nonlethally and get the "good" ending.

I want to like this game, but I can't.
GAF loves Dishonored, but I... just can't get into it.

Dunno, Alpha Protocol? Then again why wouldn't you seduce every woman in the game?

So, you think that seducing women is evil, then... hummmmmm...

Not exactly the same idea but Civilization games actively become more difficult if you try to coexist with everyone. You are better off just trying to steamroll everyone in your way, or at the very least contest every landmass for resources even if you don't really need them.

It's one reason I like Endless Legend. The diplomatic and/or commercial options are very legitimate paths. There is one race where you can even have a quest victory without necessarily declaring war during the game. And then those people who can't even declare war, all about that gold.

Love it.

 

[Sinatar]

Is there any games where being good involves missing out on important loot or making powerful enemies (because you are protecting the less weaker)? Is there any game that gives you the choice of self sacrifice (not only as an ending) in order to roleplay an actual hero?

You should look into the Ultima series starting with 4.

Your character is the embodiment of a set of good virtues and you must adhere to those virtues at all times.

Examples:
- You must be compassionate, so if in combat an enemy decides to run away, you need to let them do so despite the fact that you'll not get any XP or loot from it.
- Stealing is a big no no, see some sweet loot in someone's home? Best leave it be.
- You gotta be humble, so that standard video game practice of acting like you're king shit of the world is a big no no.

 

[Junahu]

In Pokemon Gold/Silver, you are given a Spearow and a Shuckle by two different NPC characters.

You're meant to deliver the Spearow to a fat man elsewhere, because it's holding a piece of mail that the man wants. You're allowed to remove the mail and put it onto a worse pokemon, so you can still deliver the mail, but keep the Spearow.

Shuckle is a bit more direct. You're meant to give the pokemon back after a certain point in the game, but you can just refuse to, and keep Shuckle forever. Giving the shuckle back grants no reward whatsoever.

 

[h#shdem0n]

Red Dead Redemption.

Killing people in a duel is significantly easier than disarming them. There's also a few side quests where you are given money, and the reward you get for completing the quest (usually by giving the money to another NPC) is lke 10% of the sum you were given.

 

[DrunkDan]

Red Dead Redemption.

Killing people in a duel is significantly easier than disarming them. There's also a few side quests where you are given money, and the reward you get for completing the quest (usually by giving the money to another NPC) is lke 10% of the sum you were given.

Same as GTA where you can return a purse or something similar that has far more money than the reward you get for returning it.

 

[petran79]

In Tekken and Virtua Fighter it is dishonest to hit the opponent while they're down. Yet you lose if you dont!

 

[Stone Ocean]

Undertale allows you be a complete pacifist, which makes the game overall much harder.

 

[antitrop]

Grand Theft Auto V gives you the option of bringing hitchhikers home to their intended destinations or dropping them off to a group of cannibalistic cultists.

Bringing them to the cultists opens up a sidequest.

 

[ccbfan]

Valk Profile

Spoiler

To get the true ending, You need to defy your superiors and get low marks on certain tasks.

 

[inky]

Deus Ex HR I guess?

Going the non lethal route on that fucking crash site mission is rage inducing, especially because there is a time limit scenario. The bosses tend to be harder too, at least in the higher difficulty because you are likely focusing on your non-weapon skills that weren't much help there.

TBF, I didn't have much problems with progression in the game, but it was a case of "limiting" yourself for a particular playstyle that didn't involve murdering everyone, which you could easily do. but then you were required to murder the bosses anyway.

 

[swearing-circle]

I felt like this when playing The Witcher 3. A lot of choices I had to make in the story seemed to punish me for trying to be a good person lol .Maybe that's down to the individual though.

 

[Akuun]

Shadowrun: Dragonfall had a few such choices. There were a few terrible things happening in some of the missions that you do, and you have the option to either do as you're told and get paid, or do what's morally right, piss off your employer and get paid less or nothing. You don't get any pat on the back for doing the "right thing" aside from your own moral satisfaction and maybe a few teammates saying that they think you made the right choice. No extra money or loot or anything.

One example is

Spoiler

that secret weapon project that turned out to be a super mechanically enhanced troll who was being held against his will in his own body. He was effectively a big robot weapon that had an organic component, except that organic component was still a living and conscious troll who was wired full of cybernetic parts and pumped full of drugs to the point where he has no control over his body, and was watching himself being used like a puppet to go around killing whatever his controllers wanted him to. You could either deliver this troll to your employers intact as asked, give him to a different employer who promises to pay you even more than you were hired for, free the troll, or kill him. If you killed him or freed the troll, your employer is pissed, says he'll never hire you again, and you get paid less money than you otherwise would have gotten. You get nothing extra for freeing or killing the troll aside from a few "That shit was messed up. I think you did the right thing" lines from your teammates.

Another one is

Spoiler

a mission about destroying a research lab that was working on some really really nasty blood magic. The person who hired you wanted that data destroyed, but it's possible to extract the data yourself without your employer knowing before destroying the lab. You're paid for the mission after you destroy the lab because your employer thinks the job is done, but you could then either sell the data on the black market for extra money, or destroy it. You are not told what the data is throughout the mission, but there are ways to find out if you extract the data and ask the right people. You get no special bonus if you destroy it.

 

[SephLuis]

Might not be what OP's expecting, but Nier might fit the bill.

Everything you are doing is considered good, though the game does not punish you directly.

 

[NeoFaff]

I thought of one

In The Banner Saga, a grid based RPG with an Oregon Trail overworld, you lead a group of people across the land to find safe haven. Along the way you make a lot of decisions and the straightforward compassionate choices usually work out poorly for your people. There are a few semi-important events in particular that really make you doubt your decisions and your desire to do good versus being pragmatic.

 

[Steroyd]

Deus Ex HR before the re-release, want to ghost around non lethally hacking stuff, tough shit you don't have enough health when it comes to bosses.

Infamous always had the less fun powers when you go the good route.

 

[Green Card]

That's a pretty good point OP. More games should do this.

 

[Rymuth]

Walking Dead Season 1 - Every good decision gets thrown out the window.

 

[Nameless]

In KOTOR you definitely missed out on the funnest, most powerful abilities and the vastly superior story beats playing the Light path.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Fable 1 usually had the evil decision reward you more, the game was easy af though so not that it matters and the addon made it so both choices reward the same thing at the end.

Fable 3 had some interesting concepts with being necessarily evil to some degree to save the country, it was just such a bad game otherwise.

 

[Hypron]

Dishonored does this very well in my opinion. Most of the powers and items are oriented towards a violent playstyle, so players have to make a ludic sacrifice and use a more limited toolset to play nonlethally and get the "good" ending.

I really dislike that because the game is a lot more fun when you use the entire toolset, but you are penalised for doing it.

 

[Freezing]

Hearthstone, I avoid the aggro decks that have low amounts of interplay with the opponent and then I get beaten for it. It's like my own personal dark comedy.

 

[Astarte]

Undertale allows you be a complete pacifist, which makes the game overall much harder.

The Genocide run punishes you by pitting you against the hardest enemy in the game tho

 

[Garlador]

Mass Effect 2.

Exploit your fame and notoriety for a shop keeper to get a discount and tell them that "this is my favorite store in the Citadel".

... EVERY store is your favorite store on the Citadel. Get ALL the discounts. Zero repercussions.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Hearthstone, I avoid the aggro decks that have low amounts of interplay with the opponent and then I get beaten for it. It's like my own personal dark comedy.

Me so smart I play control.

Aggro is in no way bad behaviour and it's good there are aggro decks in any TCG/CCG punishing control and midrange players for being being slow.

 

[Tizoc]

Would Vagrant Story count?
Basically the better you land attacks against an enemy the higher the chances of landing a miss hit is.

 

[SephLuis]

I remembered other one, that I am not sure if it also fits the bill since the game does not goes out of it's way to punish you.

By not killing some creatures, you get the good ending in The Witch and the Hundred Knight.

Yes, that's a "punishment" to the player.

 

[Mahonay]

Battlefield 4 after the latest patch. Every single round now gets rebalanced based on performance.

Oh, you did really well in a round and played together as a team? Enjoy your reward! All of the the worst players from the losing team are now swapped to your team. And if you're playing with a group, some of your friends are getting thrown on the opposite side. Good luck trying to regroup!

 

[Mr. Poolman]

The Banner Saga.

Goddammit Banner Saga, why do you do this to me? ;_;

 

[Kaleinc]

I really dislike that because the game is a lot more fun when you use the entire toolset, but you are penalised for doing it.

The game doesn't penalize you, you do. That's what happens when you put achievements or whatever above fun, it becomes less fun.

 

[Deified Data]

Dishonored does this very well in my opinion. Most of the powers and items are oriented towards a violent playstyle, so players have to make a ludic sacrifice and use a more limited toolset to play nonlethally and get the "good" ending.

Yep. I'm not inclined to say a low chaos playthrough is "good" and a high chaos playthrough is "evil", or even that the game punishes one over the other, but if you want to fully experience the game and use every toy the game gives you to their fullest potential, it's going to steer you towards chaos. Most of the amazing tools and powers in the game are useless if you're trying to ghost through the game.

Would Vagrant Story count?
Basically the better you land attacks against an enemy the higher the chances of landing a miss hit is.

I think OP is asking from a narrative reward perspective, but if we're throwing mechanics into the mix too I'd say Valkyria Chronicles for punishing you with a lower score if you take your time and focus on clearing the map instead of speed running to the objective, which seems counter-intuitive for a tactics-heavy strategy game.

 

[Hypron]

The game doesn't penalize you, you do. That's what happens when you put achievements or whatever above fun, it becomes less fun.

I really don't like where the story is going if you take the "evil" path. It totally penalises me because I have to choose between lowering my enjoyment of the gameplay or my enjoyment of the story quite significantly.

 

[Kaleinc]

I really don't like where the story is going if you take the "evil" path. It totally penalises me because I have to choose between lowering my enjoyment of the gameplay or my enjoyment of the story quite significantly.

15 hours of fun, lacking ending cutscene vs 25 hours of tedium, ok ending cutscene.
Either cutscene is 2 minutes long and is on youtube, decisions, decisions.

 

[AdamAG]

Maybe not strictly following the OP, but I found inFamous 1 very confusing. Kessler gives you the choice to save your love interest (name evades me) or 10 doctors. On my first play through, I chose the doctors and it said 'evil: you have made a negative choice'. I think the game should probably not have presented that choice to you. I'm probably soulless for picking the logical choice, and I get what they're trying to say, but is it evil to choose 10 doctors who are going to save numbers of lives in the long run?

 

[vocab]

SMT4. Law path is just..... Man don't do it.

 

[Hypron]

15 hours of fun, lacking ending cutscene vs 25 hours of tedium, ok ending cutscene.
Either cutscene is 2 minutes long and is on youtube, decisions, decisions.

If you think the ending cutscene is the only difference you haven't been paying attention to the game.

Also, the game isn't that long.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

W3 was right on. 30 Years War-esque shit doesn't lend itself to saving the downtrodden.

SMT4. Law path is just..... Man don't do it.

Yeah, but that's an ethical alignment, not moral.

 

[Red Hood]

Dishonored does this very well in my opinion. Most of the powers and items are oriented towards a violent playstyle, so players have to make a ludic sacrifice and use a more limited toolset to play nonlethally and get the "good" ending.

Yep, this would be my choice as well, especially the bold part is spot on. You can play as a good guy with limited resources/tougher situations or get seduced by the dark side with all the crazy ass fun powers and versatile gadgets.

Dishonored should be played at least two times though, once as a pacifist and one as the devil.

Spoiler

I'm at 6

 

[Tigress]

You find a briefcase on the street. There is 1 million dollars there! You lose nothing by keeping it, but, at the most, receive a % as a reward for giving it back to its owner.

On games, otoh, there is almost no sacrifice involved in being good. I kept wanting to make a horrible human being as a New Vegas character, one who would eventually ally himself with the Caesar's Legion, but then, it's like finding a briefcase with 10.000 dollars on the street, giving it back to its owner and receiving a million dollars reward for your trouble. Being good usually means getting a lot of rewards, being loved by almost everyone (often everyone that matters), getting access to the best quests and having an easier life in general. On other words, being altruist on games involves a lot less self sacrifice than being an egoist.

Is there any games where being good involves missing out on important loot or making powerful enemies (because you are protecting the less weaker)? Is there any game that gives you the choice of self sacrifice (not only as an ending) in order to roleplay an actual hero?

Skyrim in some cases anyways. You miss out on some good quests if you are good. You don't even get a quest if you want to be against the thieve's guild. And the assassin's guild quest if you want to rid the world of htem is a short one with nothing interesting as a reward. But join them and you get a whole new slew of quests and even a unique horse eventually.

Yes, it kinda pissed me off that I missed out on quests just cause i wanted my character to be good.

 

[GodzillaDB]

I recall Dante's Inferno being a little problematic near the conclusion as someone who adhered strictly to the 'holy' spectrum of the "Punish or Absolve" system which distributes XP between your primary and secondary weapon respectively. If you simply give absolution to every condemned soul throughout the game, you're only able to upgrade your sidearm, the Holy Cross, which felt less powerful as you delve deeper into the circles of Hell. Regular encounters seemed to persist for a long time since I never spent a single point on leveling your main source of combat, the 'unholy' scythe of Death, which required dismembering your enemies as a consequence.

 

[Toa TAK]

If you're like me and like to play stealthy or not kill anyone, MGSV is this due to not being able to use 95% of your arsenal.

 

[veloxStrix]

The Witcher 3 had a lot of areas where doing good things resulted in worse things happening down the line.