No Reward For The Wicked?

Increasing numbers of games are offering players choice in how they allow the player to complete the game. Obviously it's more prominent in RPGs, but the element is becoming more accepted generally. Players typically like to be able to dictate the actions of their characters, and getting to choose "good" or "bad" options can give a slightly different slant on the game.

However, one problem with this choice is that frequently players that pick the "bad" option often get short-changed. Being obnoxious to people within a game shuts down plot lines by alienating or even killing the characters. In some cases, this even results in the death of potential party members.


The problem lies in that the evil player is frequently not granted extra rewards for their bad actions. By being rotten and selfish, they would typically expect to be granted greater rewards as they make decisions purely based on self-interest to increase their own power. For a classic recent example, take the original BioShock. The player had the choice of rescuing the little sisters, or harvesting them for Adam, which the player was told would provide significantly more Adam by killing the little sister. Given that the selfish choice would be to take all the Adam for yourself, one would surely assume that an evil character would end up with more Adam. However, this is not the case. Due to gifts of Adam given to the good player, they actually end up with more. Similar disparities occur in other games, as the player recruits allies and makes friends that come back and help later on, making their journey easier.

Unfortunately, this is a typical situation. Gamers and game developers seem to have a predilection for a classic hero archetype rather than the anti-hero, even though the latter is becoming increasingly popular in movies. Even taking the comparison of Batman, where the most two recent Batman films represent a dark and morally challenged character, Batman: Arkham Asylum (while being a great game) still portrayed Batman as a fairly standard hero lacking that same dark moral edge present in those films.


Before anyone tries to cite counter evidence as the "hero's" ending for vanilla Fallout 3 (ie no DLC), I have to declare that was nothing short of appalling writing. It ruined the game for me. (Note that I steered clear of spoilers for anyone who hasn't yet finished it)

Of course, there's the argument that ruthless and evil character should have a harder time, because they're not making allies and betraying everyone in their path. And in some respects, that's an entirely valid argument. But surely the evil character who has killed and betrayed their way to power should be versed in dispatching their enemies with either guile or brute force better than the righteous do-gooder hero?

Perhaps the only significant example I can think of was Grand Theft Auto IV - where the option of seeking revenge actually turned out to be the "good" choice, which is perhaps contrary to what might be expected. I'd like to see more choices where the "right" decision actually comes around to bite the "good" player. That option to spare the supposedly repentant criminal or to help the "poor helpless victim" could result in them appearing later to oppose the hero. Every good intention does not need to be rewarded, and every bad intention does not need to be punished.

But even after saying all that, I have to end this post with a slight hypocrite warning. I always play "good" the first time through a game. Heck, some games I've never even played through picking the evil options, as I just couldn't bring myself to do it. That said, the jaw-dropping ability of some evil choices (point-blank executions in Mass Effect spring to mind) cannot be underestimated.

Edit: I should note that BioWare has given us a few recent examples in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening, where "good" choices do come back and bite the player somewhat. As much as I lamented not being able to have a Hollywood happy ending, I loved the fact that I didn't get it.