Hmm... If you could kill the hero off then it would be just some sort of resource/defense game as suggested. But, in the stereotypical good vs evil thing you'd have a hero who in effect would be unstopable throughout the entire game. So, let's say you have an unstopable hero. You'd have a game where you'd gain access to more and more powerfull minions to send after the hero as your weaker ones die. Then ultimately the hero faces and kills you restoring peace to the land.

Sounds pointless if it's just like that but maybe you could make it fun (or at least somewhat interesting) if you end up training/converting weak minions into powerful ones (which could be an interesting quest) or go through some process to find out more background info about the hero thus revealing an interesting storyline.

Just a knit-pick, since I've seen "hero" versus "antihero" tossed around some in this thread. An antihero isn't evil, rather, he's someone who performs heroic deeds, but doesn't possess the traits one thinks a hero would have. Classic antiheros are Batman and Wolverine. In this context the main character from gta isn't an antihero, he's just a bad guy :) .

Quote:Original post by Kest
What's the difference, gameplay-wise? Whether you're the hero or the villain, you're still allied with a team and unmercifully killing another. There may be some differences in the motivation for the spilled blood, but the choices made in-game by the player and the consequences of them are about the same, aren't they? In other words, it doesn't matter if you're good or evil, it's still the same game.

Perhaps what you're wanting isn't really about good vs bad, but rather to flip the typical video-game combat situation of hero vs army, and face single unstoppable entities with your own armies?

Aside from the obvious part: it's fun to be the bad guy, the two won't necessarily have the same gameplay.

In Dungeon Keeper, you could do deliciously evil things like torture your captives. I doubt the "good" side would have that option in a typical black and white good versus evil fantasy scenario.

I was actually a bit surprised it let you torture captives, that was the first game I played that had that. But it was presented in a relatively benign way and was a guilty source of pleasure :P . Kind of like when you beat up an old lady with a baseball bat in gta :P (though obviously that WASN'T presented in a benign way).

I guess it depends on how much you get into it. It's true, that if all you want to do is build some units and duke it out there's no difference between the good and evil sides. But some of us like playing the bad guy :) .

Quote:Original post by gharen2
Aside from the obvious part: it's fun to be the bad guy, the two won't necessarily have the same gameplay.

Apart from the role-drive and situationals, what is different because you're evil instead of good? Most importantly, what gameplay is different?

Quote:In Dungeon Keeper, you could do deliciously evil things like torture your captives. I doubt the "good" side would have that option in a typical black and white good versus evil fantasy scenario.

Probably not, but what type of interaction was envolved in the torture? It's been a long time since I played it, and I can't remember torturing people, but it honestly doesn't sound like it would be very entertaining. In any case, the gameplay, if any other than a command, was most likely similar to some typical good-guy gameplay situation, except you've been roled as evil and the act called torture. Not that the role-playing isn't important, but I'm trying to seperate that from the actual gameplay aspect for the comparison.

For example, in GTA, you could be roled as an undercover policeman chasing bad guys in a horribly corrupt city full of blood-thirsty criminals. Almost all of the gameplay could remain the same, except the role-playing. Does that change it's fun? Most likely. But it still doesn't really change the gameplay.

Hmm, I respect what you're saying, but I don't think we can agree. It sounds like you're considering gameplay to be the mechanics of the game, which I agree will be more or less the same for both sides. I'm just one of those people who consider the roleplaying and situationals to be an integral part of gameplay. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

What you say about gta having the same gameplay if you were a cop is a good example. For me it's the gameplay that makes a game fun, and in GTA it's fun killing innocents :P . The totally random, brutal, amoral violence defines GTA as a game (hell, a genre). If the mechanics of the game were the same, but you were playing an undercover cop and massacring criminals, it would be a fundamentally different game for a lot of people.

As for torture in dungeon keeper, admittedly there wasn't much to it. As I said it was quite benign. Even that was risky, and the devs probably didn't want to push their luck. For the most part torturing consisted of placing a captive on a spinning wheel or rack, and placing one of your minions to "attend" to him. Then the captive would just spin slowly and make moaning sounds. Still, it was a nice bit of flavor, and at the time was quite a surprise.

I just thought of another example: black and white. You could play as a good or evil god, and most of the mechanics of the game were the same for both. But the two sides still felt fundamentally different. On the one hand, you got your powers through prayer, and had to ensure that your people were well taken care of. On the other hand, you got your powers from sacrifice and had plenty of freedom to brutalise your subjects in all sorts of ways. Same mechanics, but totally different gameplay.

Anyways this goes back to what I said, I think we're just two different players who have different definitions of "gameplay".

Well first off, it would be really hard to do something like this, because like stated before, there's usually a hero, they dominate all the way through, and then finally kill "the big evil boss" at the end. So, if thinking like this, then this type of game would be near impossible (if not impossible).

So anyways, first off. What really makes a player/computer good or evil? Their objective. You could still play the role of a dominating character, and go through levels, but objective would just be for bad in the end.

A second thought, would be to go through, where you face this "unbeatable" good guy, but with a new system. First off, I always did wonder this, why do the enemies always get harder as you go along? Is there a way to explain the raising difficulty, or is it just to make the game possible? Well, anyways, here's my other idea:

You start off as the villian. Stats are low, henchmen are scarce (sp?), and you need to stop that troublesome "good guy." So here you go. The "good guy" follows paths in each level, to try and complete it. The enemies are either AI controlled, or player controlled (one at a time). There is a limited number of these monsters in each level, so these abilities have to be used wisely (of when to, and when not to control your monsters). Now if you can beat the computer controlled "player/good guy" well good for you, high five, and a huge high score. If your like any other hardcore gamer or normal player, it would take you a couple levels though. Now after you "lose" a level, you will be given a set of points based on how well you held of the "good guy." These points you could then spread through the enemies of the next level (and some, for the rest of the game), as well as set stuff with these points for the boss.

But yeah, just some more ieas for the conversation =)

Matt

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
My vision: You're in a dungeon or castle. You have minions of all sorts. That you can cast at any time. You are the last boss. Your job is simple. Either have your minions kill the hero or stall the hero long enough for you to complete your tool for world domination. If they kill the hero and you still haven't acquire the tool then another hero comes along. He maybe weaker; he maybe stronger. If they kill the hero and you acquire the tool, then Game Over, you win and wait for the sequel [smile]. If the hero reaches you before acquire the tool then you have to fight until the tool is acquired or just kill the hero. If you die, the hero wins and game over for you.

The rest I explained in the OP.

That sounds a lot like Evil Genius; your objective was world domination based on a special piece of equipment that you had to build and protect, and unlike Dungeon Keeper you had an evil genius character representing yourself that you had to protect. It also had a bunch of cliche heroes that were nigh-on invincible, and minions especially designed to stall and disorientate them. But as Spoonbender pointed out, while Evil Genius was rather stylish it wasn't that much fun.

Perfect Dark on the N64 had a multiplayer mode like this. Player one controlled the hero, while Player two controlled the random faceless one-hit-kill enemies scattered throughout the level. The biggest problem with it was that it was incredibly disorienting for player two to be switching to a new person over and over as their minions die.

Yeah, Perfect Dark did it, and it was confusing, and it was also pretty unfair at times, since player 2 might luck out and become a sniper or something, who could then gank poor player 1 easily as the charge into the base with their obligatory pistol and eight rounds of ammunition.

The Hunt for Red October on the Game Boy had the same feature, and the same problem. A human brain turns grunt enemies into a real problem. I mean, imaging if a player was controlling a Hunter in Halo. You'd be spammed to death by the loousy gun before you got anywhere near the thing.