Set villains - or simply differing points of views?

[Starwars]

In the IE games there were villains who you were up against. Even in Torment, there was a set "end-boss" that you had to overcome.

 

Are you fine with this, or would you rather have it like New Vegas for example where you are free to join whoever you want? Even the "baddies" of the wasteland - Caesar's Legion.

 

I am personally more interested in the New Vegas way of doing things where it is left to the player whom he/she wants to support and go up against in the game.

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

I think that may be related to the 'faction' stretch goal. My guess is that that represents the 'evil' path you can take if that funding is met.

[Undecaf]

I'd also like different points of view - like NV - instead of a set villain. It makes the game much more interesting and involving experience.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Undecaf

[Starwars]

I'm gonna give this the ol' one-time bumperoo because I feel it's worth discussing.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I'd prefer a The Witcher 2 / Alpha Protocol / Fallout 2 set-up, where there are just differing points of view, but you are at times forced into conflict with them. A lot of the time, in a well-written story, people with similar perspectives are forced into conflict by circumstance.

 

Spoilerific details of what I mean lie ahead:

 

 

In TW2, one of the things they did really well was allow Geralt to make important decisions based on the player's sympathies, without making Geralt the center of the universe. Do you feel comradire with Letho by the end of the game, and want to spare him? Well, you still had to fight him early on, because the world doesn't revolve around you, and he had other objectives besides being your friend. Do you support Saskia's desire for a free Vergen? You still have to fight her. Do you actually support the lodge's aims? You can sort of help them out, sparing Sile, letting them control the dragon, but that doesn't mean they have a sit-down with you and allow you to fight for them. It goes on and on. You have influence and choice, but it's not a standard "chose the faction you want to be the hero of" set up you see in New Vegas or KotOR 1 or The Witcher 1.

 

In Alpha Protocol, you can end up teaming up with / supporting / usurping the "throne" of pretty much any of the other characters, but your decision isn't the primary thing that determines the course of their decisions in the game. You still have to fight the terrorists in the first act, and they'll remain terrorists all throughout. The smart analyst dude can only be convinced of the error of his ways at the very end of the game. The crazy russian gun Chick or the Pale dude with the mute sister? Have to be enemies before they can become allies. Halbech? It's not as simple as just saying, "hey, I like you guys now! Let me team up with you?" You need to earn the Arch-villain's respect. His super chief operative? He never joins you, but you can earn his tacit compliance. Et cetera.

 

This is how things should be done. Any choices it makes sense for you to have? You should have. But there's a middle ground between "lol, commander of the sith!" and "No choices, must kill the evil people."

 

 

[Zonn]

I think "pure evil plot" is fine background for fantasy genre. But a different points of view on top of that would be cool

[Flouride]

I guess it will depend on the story. While I don't mind set end-bosses they need to make sense for the character I'm playing. Dragon Age 2 failed at this badly, while Baldur's Gate 1&2 and PS:T were good examples how set end bosses worked well.

Then again if it's more of free roaming story with different factions and all, then something like the ending of F:NV is better.