The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ever since the dawn of time (well, almost) there has been a universal fight – good versus evil, good guy against the bad guy – it’s the oldest rivalry in the book. As current scores go, good is beating evil about 34,276,023 to 2. You see, the bad guys very rarely come out on top – that’s just the way of the world. Despite the most carefully laid plans (female companionship, world domination and lifetime financial security are amongst the most popular goals), they are inevitably foiled by someone usually considerably smaller and insignificant (think Link/Ganon, Mario/Bowser). Games are no exception to the rule, if anything, games are the area at which this balance is most heavily tipped in the balance of good – tell me, unless you’re rubbish at games, when a bad guy has ever emerged victorious…thought so.
This concept of the baddie emerging victorious can be looked at two ways – either you play as the good guy but the bad guy still wins in the game’s ending, or, to try something not traditionally done in computer games, and that is actually play the bad guys themselves.
So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won? Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a helluva lot more. Sometimes the good guy winning just doesn’t provide as suitable a climax. Take Shadowman for example, after 50 odd hours of play, the ending, quite frankly, was pathetic. But if you lost the boss battle, you were treated to a far more gratifying and enjoyable ending sequence. A poser for developers perhaps?
With the almost inevitability of sequels in the marketplace these days, how about having a game where the bad guy or antagonist emerges victorious, but leaves on a cliffhanger ending, or only scrapes by escaping from your clutches. Some people may not like the open-endedness (was that even a word?), but it sure makes looking forward to a sequel more appealing, and beats the old ‘hero defeats giant evil and then rides off into the sunset’ we’ve been given for the last 20 years (approx). It could even pave the way for a more episodic form of gaming.
And then there’s the flips side. I don’t know about you guys, but I think playing a bad guy would be refreshing. Just as actors say portraying the antagonist is much more challenging, and an ultimately a more fulfilling role, I think playing the quintessential baddie could make for a more fulfilling game playing experience – sure, you have characters like Max Payne and James Bond who kill and generally cause mayhem, but they have a reason for doing so. Wouldn’t it be more satisfying to play a character who does these things just for the hell of it, or because his mission is not as altruistic as your more traditional ‘hero’. I don’t know about you, but rather than playing an anodyne, goody goody two shoes character, wouldn’t it be much more satisfying to play an evil villain, hell bent on world domination (or any of the other usual goals). In the past, in games like Shadowman and Reaver, you play a sort of an anti-hero, but you are still fighting on the side of good.
Why not apply that concept in reverse?
I know that there are games, such as Mafia for example, where you generally play a character in a bad persona. But the vast majority of games almost force you to play the ‘good guy’ role imagine an FPS, or a first person adventure when you are the bad guy. With a good enough storyline, it’s plausible, and would be a refreshing change. Ever wanted to be Bowser and actually stop Mario capturing Peach. Better still (and Hideo Kojima is someone who I could actually see doing this – MGS3, perhaps?); imagine a Metal Gear game where you play Revolver Ocelot or Solidus Snake, where you have to devise ways to stop Solid Snake. Even better still, a game that would offer both elements of gameplay would be potentially a truly complete experience – imagine either playing as Revolver Ocelot placing guards and controlling cameras as one mode, and the traditional MGS mode as another – a truly mouth-watering prospect, and with today’s technology, a feature that is feasible.
From a commercial point of view, it could open up a whole new realm of possibilities for developers, not to mention the money making side, which is an undeniable factor. It would open up some more creative licence for developers, and could potentially give some fading games series a much needed boost of longevity and/or popularity. But the main beneficiary? Us. A more rounded gaming experience, the chance to play different types of characters, and most of all, just an enhancement in our gaming experience.
So, what if the bad guys won?
Thanks for reading – I await your opinions…
This concept of the baddie emerging victorious can be looked at two ways – either you play as the good guy but the bad guy still wins in the game’s ending, or, to try something not traditionally done in computer games, and that is actually play the bad guys themselves.
So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won? Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a helluva lot more. Sometimes the good guy winning just doesn’t provide as suitable a climax. Take Shadowman for example, after 50 odd hours of play, the ending, quite frankly, was pathetic. But if you lost the boss battle, you were treated to a far more gratifying and enjoyable ending sequence. A poser for developers perhaps?
With the almost inevitability of sequels in the marketplace these days, how about having a game where the bad guy or antagonist emerges victorious, but leaves on a cliffhanger ending, or only scrapes by escaping from your clutches. Some people may not like the open-endedness (was that even a word?), but it sure makes looking forward to a sequel more appealing, and beats the old ‘hero defeats giant evil and then rides off into the sunset’ we’ve been given for the last 20 years (approx). It could even pave the way for a more episodic form of gaming.
And then there’s the flips side. I don’t know about you guys, but I think playing a bad guy would be refreshing. Just as actors say portraying the antagonist is much more challenging, and an ultimately a more fulfilling role, I think playing the quintessential baddie could make for a more fulfilling game playing experience – sure, you have characters like Max Payne and James Bond who kill and generally cause mayhem, but they have a reason for doing so. Wouldn’t it be more satisfying to play a character who does these things just for the hell of it, or because his mission is not as altruistic as your more traditional ‘hero’. I don’t know about you, but rather than playing an anodyne, goody goody two shoes character, wouldn’t it be much more satisfying to play an evil villain, hell bent on world domination (or any of the other usual goals). In the past, in games like Shadowman and Reaver, you play a sort of an anti-hero, but you are still fighting on the side of good.
Why not apply that concept in reverse?
I know that there are games, such as Mafia for example, where you generally play a character in a bad persona. But the vast majority of games almost force you to play the ‘good guy’ role imagine an FPS, or a first person adventure when you are the bad guy. With a good enough storyline, it’s plausible, and would be a refreshing change. Ever wanted to be Bowser and actually stop Mario capturing Peach. Better still (and Hideo Kojima is someone who I could actually see doing this – MGS3, perhaps?); imagine a Metal Gear game where you play Revolver Ocelot or Solidus Snake, where you have to devise ways to stop Solid Snake. Even better still, a game that would offer both elements of gameplay would be potentially a truly complete experience – imagine either playing as Revolver Ocelot placing guards and controlling cameras as one mode, and the traditional MGS mode as another – a truly mouth-watering prospect, and with today’s technology, a feature that is feasible.
From a commercial point of view, it could open up a whole new realm of possibilities for developers, not to mention the money making side, which is an undeniable factor. It would open up some more creative licence for developers, and could potentially give some fading games series a much needed boost of longevity and/or popularity. But the main beneficiary? Us. A more rounded gaming experience, the chance to play different types of characters, and most of all, just an enhancement in our gaming experience.
So, what if the bad guys won?
Thanks for reading – I await your opinions…
Page:
I've always said you should be able to play Liquid Snake in Metal Gear Solid and plan it all, then take over the woooooooorld!! Mwhahahaha.
Ever since the dawn of time (well, almost) there has been a universal fight – good versus evil, good guy against the bad guy – it’s the oldest rivalry in the book. As current scores go, good is beating evil about 34,276,023 to 2. You see, the bad guys very rarely come out on top – that’s just the way of the world. Despite the most carefully laid plans (female companionship, world domination and lifetime financial security are amongst the most popular goals), they are inevitably foiled by someone usually considerably smaller and insignificant (think Link/Ganon, Mario/Bowser). Games are no exception to the rule, if anything, games are the area at which this balance is most heavily tipped in the balance of good – tell me, unless you’re rubbish at games, when a bad guy has ever emerged victorious…thought so.
This concept of the baddie emerging victorious can be looked at two ways – either you play as the good guy but the bad guy still wins in the game’s ending, or, to try something not traditionally done in computer games, and that is actually play the bad guys themselves.
So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won? Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a helluva lot more. Sometimes the good guy winning just doesn’t provide as suitable a climax. Take Shadowman for example, after 50 odd hours of play, the ending, quite frankly, was pathetic. But if you lost the boss battle, you were treated to a far more gratifying and enjoyable ending sequence. A poser for developers perhaps?
With the almost inevitability of sequels in the marketplace these days, how about having a game where the bad guy or antagonist emerges victorious, but leaves on a cliffhanger ending, or only scrapes by escaping from your clutches. Some people may not like the open-endedness (was that even a word?), but it sure makes looking forward to a sequel more appealing, and beats the old ‘hero defeats giant evil and then rides off into the sunset’ we’ve been given for the last 20 years (approx). It could even pave the way for a more episodic form of gaming.
And then there’s the flips side. I don’t know about you guys, but I think playing a bad guy would be refreshing. Just as actors say portraying the antagonist is much more challenging, and an ultimately a more fulfilling role, I think playing the quintessential baddie could make for a more fulfilling game playing experience – sure, you have characters like Max Payne and James Bond who kill and generally cause mayhem, but they have a reason for doing so. Wouldn’t it be more satisfying to play a character who does these things just for the hell of it, or because his mission is not as altruistic as your more traditional ‘hero’. I don’t know about you, but rather than playing an anodyne, goody goody two shoes character, wouldn’t it be much more satisfying to play an evil villain, hell bent on world domination (or any of the other usual goals). In the past, in games like Shadowman and Reaver, you play a sort of an anti-hero, but you are still fighting on the side of good.
Why not apply that concept in reverse?
I know that there are games, such as Mafia for example, where you generally play a character in a bad persona. But the vast majority of games almost force you to play the ‘good guy’ role imagine an FPS, or a first person adventure when you are the bad guy. With a good enough storyline, it’s plausible, and would be a refreshing change. Ever wanted to be Bowser and actually stop Mario capturing Peach. Better still (and Hideo Kojima is someone who I could actually see doing this – MGS3, perhaps?); imagine a Metal Gear game where you play Revolver Ocelot or Solidus Snake, where you have to devise ways to stop Solid Snake. Even better still, a game that would offer both elements of gameplay would be potentially a truly complete experience – imagine either playing as Revolver Ocelot placing guards and controlling cameras as one mode, and the traditional MGS mode as another – a truly mouth-watering prospect, and with today’s technology, a feature that is feasible.
From a commercial point of view, it could open up a whole new realm of possibilities for developers, not to mention the money making side, which is an undeniable factor. It would open up some more creative licence for developers, and could potentially give some fading games series a much needed boost of longevity and/or popularity. But the main beneficiary? Us. A more rounded gaming experience, the chance to play different types of characters, and most of all, just an enhancement in our gaming experience.
So, what if the bad guys won?
Thanks for reading – I await your opinions…
This concept of the baddie emerging victorious can be looked at two ways – either you play as the good guy but the bad guy still wins in the game’s ending, or, to try something not traditionally done in computer games, and that is actually play the bad guys themselves.
So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won? Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a helluva lot more. Sometimes the good guy winning just doesn’t provide as suitable a climax. Take Shadowman for example, after 50 odd hours of play, the ending, quite frankly, was pathetic. But if you lost the boss battle, you were treated to a far more gratifying and enjoyable ending sequence. A poser for developers perhaps?
With the almost inevitability of sequels in the marketplace these days, how about having a game where the bad guy or antagonist emerges victorious, but leaves on a cliffhanger ending, or only scrapes by escaping from your clutches. Some people may not like the open-endedness (was that even a word?), but it sure makes looking forward to a sequel more appealing, and beats the old ‘hero defeats giant evil and then rides off into the sunset’ we’ve been given for the last 20 years (approx). It could even pave the way for a more episodic form of gaming.
And then there’s the flips side. I don’t know about you guys, but I think playing a bad guy would be refreshing. Just as actors say portraying the antagonist is much more challenging, and an ultimately a more fulfilling role, I think playing the quintessential baddie could make for a more fulfilling game playing experience – sure, you have characters like Max Payne and James Bond who kill and generally cause mayhem, but they have a reason for doing so. Wouldn’t it be more satisfying to play a character who does these things just for the hell of it, or because his mission is not as altruistic as your more traditional ‘hero’. I don’t know about you, but rather than playing an anodyne, goody goody two shoes character, wouldn’t it be much more satisfying to play an evil villain, hell bent on world domination (or any of the other usual goals). In the past, in games like Shadowman and Reaver, you play a sort of an anti-hero, but you are still fighting on the side of good.
Why not apply that concept in reverse?
I know that there are games, such as Mafia for example, where you generally play a character in a bad persona. But the vast majority of games almost force you to play the ‘good guy’ role imagine an FPS, or a first person adventure when you are the bad guy. With a good enough storyline, it’s plausible, and would be a refreshing change. Ever wanted to be Bowser and actually stop Mario capturing Peach. Better still (and Hideo Kojima is someone who I could actually see doing this – MGS3, perhaps?); imagine a Metal Gear game where you play Revolver Ocelot or Solidus Snake, where you have to devise ways to stop Solid Snake. Even better still, a game that would offer both elements of gameplay would be potentially a truly complete experience – imagine either playing as Revolver Ocelot placing guards and controlling cameras as one mode, and the traditional MGS mode as another – a truly mouth-watering prospect, and with today’s technology, a feature that is feasible.
From a commercial point of view, it could open up a whole new realm of possibilities for developers, not to mention the money making side, which is an undeniable factor. It would open up some more creative licence for developers, and could potentially give some fading games series a much needed boost of longevity and/or popularity. But the main beneficiary? Us. A more rounded gaming experience, the chance to play different types of characters, and most of all, just an enhancement in our gaming experience.
So, what if the bad guys won?
Thanks for reading – I await your opinions…
Page: