Are there any games where being evil actually makes a difference to the story instead of making your character a giant manchild faggot?
You can be quite a psychotic cunt in Alpha Protocol and it does affect how people treat you.
But being the downright villain of the story that just wants to take over the world, i can't think of a game that allows you to.
This, also the first KOTOR.
Shitton of hentai game.
For example there's one where in evil route you prostitute the heroine for cash instead, you also sabotage the peace meeting between the waring faction ( the main objective of the good route ) and proceed to annihilate and rape the other faction.
Soul Nomad and The Soul Eaters has an excellent evil route
and I mean genuinely evil and sick stuff, no edge meister shit
The Witcher 2 lets you support the evil guys, when you can
Join the faggot IRA terrorist elves, which bifurcates the story. Not that anyone with more than a single functioning braincell would betray BROche, who put his own neck on the line to save you earlier on.
I don't understand why these questions always pop up on /v/?
For instance, I don't get a kick out of playing an evil character for the most part. Everything that involves being a stupid edgelord comes down to the shittiest outcome because human nature strifes way more for benevolence instead of malice because it's more pleasant and satisfies your own survivalism traits.
In BG2 you can become the new Bhaal. the outcome only changes narratively but you will be in the same place no matter what you do, just like NWN2 MotB and PS:T. There is nothing bad about it.
In ToEE you can start a chaotic evil party but the path is the goal. it won't get you anywhere being evil instead of ripping other of for quick bucks mostly.
Anyways, sorry, but I find these kinds of threads incredibly stupid. Same with the constant parroting about "muh lore" this, "muh lore" that in TES games.
Pro-tip: the "story" is all you do throughout the game. And as an evil character you get plenty of opportunities to do things in an evil fashion.
The core events may be the same but those are outside of the player's control. Whether he's evil or not doesn't make a difference.
>support the elf edgelord
>god fuck you lost a fuckton of exp and story/quests when you were the evil bitch.
but that's normal. if you piss off the key NPCs, they will have a harder time progressing along with you and you will be almost alone and thus gain less insight about what's happening because you decided you don't care and murder, rob and betrayer everybody. evil choices in games are synonymous with being shortsighted, stupid and flawed. that's the dichotomy between good (favorable, delightful, positive advancement etc) and evil (always lacking)
Soul Nomad and The Soul Eaters has a full on "Ow the Edge" path
but you gotta be a really high level on NG+ first to start it, the first thing you do is burn the starting village to the ground and kill everyone and it only goes downhill from there
>>but that's normal.
No its not, while I agree with your reasoning, a good RPG should balance this, for example making specific quests and storylines only available for evil characters.
Otherwise there is no reason to pick anything but neutral/good, except for being a worse version of a paladin.
Creating evil in a game is extremely hard to do because the player inevitably has context to their actions. That's why so many "evil" dialogue choices are just edgy sperglord spewings. Having actual consequences to your actions tends to fuck up the narrative.
That isn't to say it can't be done, but generally speaking you have to go with a non-traditional story format to pull it off.
Mask of the Betrayer
there are other obsidian/black isle examples, but this one is the strongest in my opinion because it changes the whole game and how you play it, not just the ending
there are no good ones for what OP wants and what OP wants is kinda stupid anyway.
NWN modules have no quality control and could be written by a 12 year old because that's how the content sometimes comes across.
Also, I really enjoyed "Live Forever" for NWN2. You're part of a bandit group there and you rob and murder everybody in a caravan but that's still very linear and your party isn't really evil either, they are just fuckups. Anyway, it was really good but when OP wants games with the traits he described, they will never be anything decent to begin with as it's terribly uninteresting.
fallout is a good example, there's a few evil things you can do during the main stories of the games, and there's also heaps of fulfilling evil ways to finish the side quests, except in fallout 3...
Roche is the ultimate bro.
Even if you side with edgy elf he still agrees to help you AND saves your ass from Nilfgaard.
>a good RPG should balance this, for example making specific quests and storylines only available for evil characters.
yeah but that's double the work for the developers and evil shit doesn't sell as much because it's merely depressing. This is why it usually doesn't happen so every character is rather on the same path no matter what alignment. So yes, it is normal because that's how RPGs are usually turn out. If they make a patch for each alignment, it would be completely redundant to begin with. Imagine the budget for such a game.
>Imagine the budget for such a game.
Yes, but why give the option for an evil dude in the first place?
Eh I think Im just exaggerating, whatever, its not like it matters anyway.
>Otherwise there is no reason to pick anything but neutral/good
In real life there is no grand reason or favorable outcome to be a huge dick and a psychopath either unless it's just about being very cunning but not outright evil, cruel and destructive.
Deus Ex instantiates the idea of being an "evil character" by allowing the player as JC Denton to be the equivalent of a conscience-less, technologically advanced assassin and killing machine.
It's really only Bioware rpgs in which being evil amounts to being an annoying and childish cunt.
>Yes, but why give the option for an evil dude in the first place?
dicking around and getting a kick out of having that freedom for one or two minutes until it just becomes stupid or having a vast variation of characters with different mentalities because that builds tension, motives, character development and helps having a base for a narrative which is just pure friction and conflict because there are heroes and villains.
Very worth the completion, also when you finish the game, your save file carries over to the sequel. So say if you get the good ending, The Ties that Bind will start off exactly where that ending left off, and people will treat you very differently compared to what they'd do if you started with the bad ending save file.
keeping the illusion of choice. but as it has been said already, acting evil is simply counter-intuitive to the regular progression and build up of the story and thus rather idiotic and unfavorable because that's what the nature of evil is. evil a shit.
Even though that it was a seriously piece of shit game. Shadow the Hedgehog was one of the very few games that can change level's, bosses, story, endings etc depending on your morality system.
Like I said though, shit game.
Yep, but the game had huge potential to be something special, but it failed in almost every aspect apart from actually changing how the story went. For example, if you start off evil, and then decided for the second half of the game to go down the good route, the last few level's and bosses would be totally different if you just went all out good since the beginning, that's how mortality games should be done.
>devour your companions for items that gives stat boosts
why would I want those items? they can keep their damn stuff. I can forge and enchant better stuff. I never played the chaotic evil path.
Not only that, but completing the second game (TtB) with an imported save file from Suffering 1 changes the overall ending in 6 different ways (3 endings for the first game, 3 for the second).
For example, if you finished the first game with an evil character and the second with a good one, the game explains it that during the events of
killing your family you were drugged and afterwards you tried to repent.
Thus, Good, Neutral and Evil playthroughs * 2 games = 6 different endings/storylines.
The Closed Fist concept was interesting, but it was never that well implemented. You ended up being a annoying cunt, just like every other Bioware game. Just look at how you deal with the Waterdragon.
I think DAO did quite a good job of that. I played a human noble bitch who acted nice and manipulated everyone, meanwhile, I corrupted the ashes, killed Genitivi, wiped out the daelish and recruited Loghain. I kept the mages, though.
Meanwhile, I was able to roleplay her as a generally agreeable but ruthless person. Not a childish dick. I let Alistair live and was generally nice, but deceptive.
I also played a bunch of better spirited character who occasionally did dickish things, such as fucking the chick that daelish beta is in love with.
And then, DA2 came out.
>Just never saw a reason to be evil
Exactly, because many games don't give you a good reason to be evil.
Of course, if a game does offer you options to be the "necessery evil", then you're not really evil anymore, just morally grey.
You basically replace the emperor by doing so. Nothing is really solved, the dead cannot enter the underworld, and the empire continues living on borrowed time. Sure, it's definately evil, but it wasn't really what Closed Fist was about. It was meant to let people improve and strengthen themselves by facing hardships and challenges.
As much as I hate to say it, Closed Fist was supposed to be Dark Souls, whereas Open Palm was to be Mass Effect or any other triple A title. None of it was really implemented in the game.