Rewarding System for Villains and Evil Deeds

[XxSn1p3dxX]

My bro came up with this idea, so all credit goes to him. You know how in Bioshock 1 & 2 that you are rewarded for rescuing little sisters? Well, if harvesting only gives you extra adam and an evil ending, then why can't villains have an equivalent rewarding system? So, you don't feel like you just got a little more adam for doing the wrong deed. If Irrational Games brings the rewarding system back in future Bioshock game, then I definitely suggest they should balance out the rewarding system, so people can enjoy going on either side instead of just converting on the good side because it has rewards only on this side. That way everyone can choose either side and receive unique rewards only found on the good or evil side; that way there's more freedom in choice and rewarding on the choices and deeds you made! Like say if you were allied with this thuggish band of splicers, they reward you with a special and unique weapon for your services. Everyone's a winner either way!

[watchman]

Of course it might turn out that teaching Eleanor to be 'selfish' might keep her from ending up in one of those fluid filled presrvation tubes in Area 51(or its Russian equivalent) ... so who is to say if it was a good or bad ending ???


I havent seen the math but with the extra 'rewards' the Little Sisters gave you if you didnt squish them for their ADAM the 'doing the "right" thing didnt really cost you all that much (versus NOT getting any extra ADAM for doing "Right" which would have made it a harder choice).

[XxSn1p3dxX]

watchman said:Of course it might turn out that teaching Eleanor to be 'selfish' might keep her from ending up in one of those fluid filled presrvation tubes in Area 51(or its Russian equivalent) ... so who is to say if it was a good or bad ending ???

I havent seen the math but with the extra 'rewards' the Little Sisters gave you if you didnt squish them for their ADAM the 'doing the "right" thing didnt really cost you all that much (versus NOT getting any extra ADAM for doing "Right" which would have made it a harder choice).

Yeah, but wouldn't it be more interesting if not only good guys get good loot, but villains can earn awesome loot for doing what they're best at?

[watchman]

xxsn1p3dxx said:

watchman said:Of course it might turn out that teaching Eleanor to be 'selfish' might keep her from ending up in one of those fluid filled presrvation tubes in Area 51(or its Russian equivalent) ... so who is to say if it was a good or bad ending ???

I havent seen the math but with the extra 'rewards' the Little Sisters gave you if you didnt squish them for their ADAM the 'doing the "right" thing didnt really cost you all that much (versus NOT getting any extra ADAM for doing "Right" which would have made it a harder choice).

Yeah, but wouldn't it be more interesting if not only good guys get good loot, but villains can earn awesome loot for doing what they're best at?

You mean 'be consistant in your villainy' -- or in a game that give you the ability - to be creative in and excel in your villainy.... (wish-washy villains shouldnt be rewarded much)


The good/bad decision we are given are pretty simplistic (and thoroughly choreographed) and the game would need to give you more scope for clearly being 'good' or 'bad' in a whole lot of different ways.


Most of the time, 'bad' people do what they do because of the payoff (not simply because its 'bad') so it would be logical to 'tempt' the player with equivalent rewards to be bad (or maybe rewarded more to prove the point). Unfortunately the games cant reflect ALL the repercussions of being bad (the term 'outlaw' refers to the person setting themselves outside the law and thus ALSO no longer being protected by it - they could be killed on sight by anybody with no repercussions) Theres no carrythrough in these simplistic games that include that impact.


SO that leads to players picking the alternate path 'good' or 'bad' that gives them the most loot or advantage (especilaly in a MP situation) with no real impact on them ... just the better numbers ... with the morality issue being pretty much insignificant. The only thing the game can really do is try to show some fictional consequences linked to the genre (Frodo throws the ring into Mt Doom and saves the whole world from darkness) that the player can imagine themselves following the story's 'right path'.


WIth the playthru times shrinking, getting players to replay thru 'on the dark side' so they dont think they got ripped off might be a game company motive. Then equivalent rewards to make the game of similar difficulty is logical -- better would be a variation of the plot line with ALOT of different scenes and occurances and things to solve (but that costs extra $$$$ and time end effort). Of course that means that good vs bad is immaterial (but then its pretty much a non-issue already).

[deaddoucher]

Dude that sounds like an awesome idea. I would really really like to see a game do something like that, Have totally different story events for the choices you make within the world and or something stupid like that, I don't really like the options that games have to chose between being good or evil it is really simplistic in Bioshock 2 I rescued all but the first little sister *on accident* and it gives me the bad ending...lame. I would love getting good $Hit for being a horrible person in a game . I know making games is a lot of work and time and money invested, but games are supposed to be getting better right? Adding twists and different types of reward systems and everything else makes it better for me.

[XxSn1p3dxX]

You mean 'be consistant in your villainy' -- or in a game that give you the ability - to be creative in and excel in your villainy.... (wish-washy villains shouldnt be rewarded much)

The good/bad decision we are given are pretty simplistic (and thoroughly choreographed) and the game would need to give you more scope for clearly being 'good' or 'bad' in a whole lot of different ways.

Most of the time, 'bad' people do what they do because of the payoff (not simply because its 'bad') so it would be logical to 'tempt' the player with equivalent rewards to be bad (or maybe rewarded more to prove the point). Unfortunately the games cant reflect ALL the repercussions of being bad (the term 'outlaw' refers to the person setting themselves outside the law and thus ALSO no longer being protected by it - they could be killed on sight by anybody with no repercussions) Theres no carrythrough in these simplistic games that include that impact.

SO that leads to players picking the alternate path 'good' or 'bad' that gives them the most loot or advantage (especilaly in a MP situation) with no real impact on them ... just the better numbers ... with the morality issue being pretty much insignificant. The only thing the game can really do is try to show some fictional consequences linked to the genre (Frodo throws the ring into Mt Doom and saves the whole world from darkness) that the player can imagine themselves following the story's 'right path'.

WIth the playthru times shrinking, getting players to replay thru 'on the dark side' so they dont think they got ripped off might be a game company motive. Then equivalent rewards to make the game of similar difficulty is logical -- better would be a variation of the plot line with ALOT of different scenes and occurances and things to solve (but that costs extra $$$$ and time end effort). Of course that means that good vs bad is immaterial (but then its pretty much a non-issue already).


Well, you are given the choice of doing the right or wrong path, it's like fall out, you are either rewarded for your selfless acts or you selfishly kill and steal for what you consider your just deserved reward. Your actions reflect how people will like or hate you. For example you steal everything valuable in this one town and now you're vilified! But wouldn't it be interesting if Irrational Games actually made a bioshock game, where instead you are not rewarded much for your good deeds (ex: rescuing little sisters and not killing main characters), but you are rewarded for your villainy! It would be pretty much the opposite since you play as an antagonist instead of the protagonist, like for 1 bioshock game you could play as a ruthless splicer who has this ambitious goal to ascend on top of the Rapture foodchain and so on!

[XxSn1p3dxX]

deaddoucher said:Dude that sounds like an awesome idea. I would really really like to see a game do something like that, Have totally different story events for the choices you make within the world and or something stupid like that, I don't really like the options that games have to chose between being good or evil it is really simplistic in Bioshock 2 I rescued all but the first little sister *on accident* and it gives me the bad ending...lame. I would love getting good $Hit for being a horrible person <img /> in a game <img /> . I know making games is a lot of work and time and money invested, but games are supposed to be getting better right? Adding twists and different types of reward systems and everything else makes it better for me.

ikr, I probably won't play as a bad guy when I first play the game, but later on I'll be like just doing whatever I want since it's my choice! and if Irrational Games use this idea for the future bioshock game, it'll make their games the much more rewarding for turning this sandbox choice between good and evil to an awesome experience!

[watchman]

Not really sure what they are going to do in Infinite (sounds like they talked of 'more scripting' but it doesnt explain what will result.) The usual problem is plotting out all the alternatives that will happen (for good/bad or even grey areas in between) and making the individual 'moral choice' incidents interact properly. Making everything react correctly depending on what you previously did can be a magnitude more 'scripting' (reason why these games are so staticly choreographed and have you led around by the nose -- even WITH the so-called 'moral choices')


If you had a 'bad' side to act as a faction that you get help from -- instead of EVERYONE (except lil sisters) shooting at you no matter what you did, you would have more to interact with in different ways and more 'real' choices to make.


And for a 'grey' area --- like being able to double-cross the factions (and then have them react to THAT correctly) or to have you (the player) make a 'power play' for the leadership of the faction (and win or lose) or just play as a grunt for them.


This isnt really a 'sandbox' because the individual situations become interelated (more than all those independant missions and fixed quest trees the current games have).


I hope that the game companies finally figure out how to increase their development efficiency to produce all the more adaptive scripting that allows this kind of freedom to the players. It certainly would make for more interesting replay.