Personally I can't stand playing an rpg where I have to be some nice guy and help everyone.. it's a bit disgusting imo.. and I rarely buy rpg's like that.
Some games make a super lazy fix to that where u get a more neutral choice where u can demand payment for doing helpful things... still meh.. because your still doing nice things and its so apparant they put in no effort at all for evil gameplay.
and then the good rpg's let u do evil choices that are really fun
and some go really far with that and make quests that dont even have a good choice... but then theres quests where u dont have evil choice..
this is super annoying because i wanna do all quests in the game... i hate passing on a quest but i also hate doing a hero quest.
so i think all quests must have a good+nuetral+evil choice. and they cant be lazy effort quests too.. make each choice really big difference.

but.. easier said than done... making a good and evil path to every quest.. and the game... is like making 2 different games with the same engine.
its like double work... well not relly.. but like.. a lot of more work.

so..
how small or big is my niche?
how many players is my market of players that want evil options in rpgs?
is it worth the time and moneyand work u put in making evil path in the game or is my niche too small?

maybe its best to not do evil choices AT ALL so small my niche is?

what about making a evil game where thers no heroish actions at all..?

I don't think this is a niche. This is still catering to the rpg market which is small traditionally speaking.

I do think rpg players like choice. Whether this choice is evil, good, or neutral.

The difference in most games is how much choice they give and how much impact it has on the game. This is all designer choice based on what type of story/gameplay they want to convey.

What you should be thinking about instead of market size and fulfilling a niche is whether adding an evil path and choice in general helps your game and whether it fits with your vision of the game.

What this means is you should make your decision on this based on whether you would like to see it in your game and how well it fits.

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1348607244' post='4983745']
Personally I can't stand playing an rpg where I have to be some nice guy and help everyone.. it's a bit disgusting imo.. and I rarely buy rpg's like that.

Then why the hell are you doing one? Don't take it personally, but from your wording, you are not a professional game developer.

I detest hanna montana, there is no good reason to put me anywhere near a hanna montana game project.

but.. easier said than done... making a good and evil path to every quest.. and the game... is like making 2 different games with the same engine.
its like double work... well not relly.. but like.. a lot of more work.

Look, yes if you want a choice between good or bad, you do about twice the work. But then your game is probably bad too. Generally, decisions are interesting, if you face a dilemma. So making a good storyline is probably more work than you think.

so..
how small or big is my niche?
how many players is my market of players that want evil options in rpgs?
is it worth the time and moneyand work u put in making evil path in the game or is my niche too small?

|---------------| <--- this size is your niche.
What answer do you expect? You gave no real info about the game, project team, budget, knowledge level, experience or anything, you posted some questions.
If you have a fun game, there will be gamers. If they pay for it is a different question.

maybe its best to not do evil choices AT ALL so small my niche is?
...
what about making a evil game where thers no heroish actions at all..?

Are you here for the money? You don't seem to care much about the game, you want to sell it... I can't start to write how bad this is. If you would finish the game, it would most likely be bad, you don't seem to care, as long as you can make money.
[/quote]

where have i ever said anythign about that im making a game?
im not.

Everything you are saying implies that you are or are planning on making a game. If you are just ranting/complaining about games in a genre, this is not the place.

Everything you are saying implies that you are or are planning on making a game. If you are just ranting/complaining about games in a genre, this is not the place.

its a game design question... not a rant.
i dont have to be making the game in question to be able to discuss the design of it.

are you making a single player rpg right now? if your not then your not allowed to rant in my thread.
(using ur logic)

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1348607244' post='4983745']
Personally I can't stand playing an rpg where I have to be some nice guy and help everyone.. it's a bit disgusting imo.. and I rarely buy rpg's like that.

Then why the hell are you doing one? Don't take it personally, but from your wording, you are not a professional game developer.

I detest hanna montana, there is no good reason to put me anywhere near a hanna montana game project.

but.. easier said than done... making a good and evil path to every quest.. and the game... is like making 2 different games with the same engine.
its like double work... well not relly.. but like.. a lot of more work.

Look, yes if you want a choice between good or bad, you do about twice the work. But then your game is probably bad too. Generally, decisions are interesting, if you face a dilemma. So making a good storyline is probably more work than you think.[/quote]

If you mean "not professional" as in I'm not an employed game dev then sure.
And I see ur point that if im evil i shouldnt make heroic quests.
But if ur just one guy doing everything then u dont got a choice..
if ur more than 1 guy then u can have someone who isnt evil do the heroic quests.
I could make some really awesome evil quests that im sure no one that is more of a goodhearted player could.
So I can imagine that even tho i think I could do heroic quests that im sure someone more goodhearted would do a better job at it.
so yeah.. its better if ur 2 guys but if ur 1 then u dont got a choice

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1348607244' post='4983745']
maybe its best to not do evil choices AT ALL so small my niche is?
...
what about making a evil game where thers no heroish actions at all..?

Are you here for the money? You don't seem to care much about the game, you want to sell it... I can't start to write how bad this is. If you would finish the game, it would most likely be bad, you don't seem to care, as long as you can make money.
[/quote]

all studios have to thikn about costs.
just an extreme example so u can understand..

lets pretend u could give a nicer more professional feel to ur game by making a cool effect when u hover mouse over buttons.
that would make ur game more enoyable.. but lets pretend it takes 10 years more work to do this to all buttons.
then its not worth doing it which im hoping u can understand.

What do you mean when you say "2 guys"?
Do you mean a party system where you have a group of characters?
Or are you thinking of multiple story lines that interweave each other?

Also, what type of choice are you giving to the player?

It is a good design question actually and I don't think it's been asked in awhile. There probably are a few old threads somewhere worth searching for. Personally, I don't think I've seen "evil" done all that well in games.

For the how many people question, it'd be pretty tough to say. But I would point out that as we age we tend to start to understand the grey areas of morality better and better. when you're young your sense of what's right and wrong is pretty much absolute based on how you're brought up and whatever bits of your own logic you're able to piece together. Hopefully, as you get older you start to see how two people can have opposing views on something but both think they're doing the right thing by opposing each other. Or how your own actions to make something better has an unforeseen price of some kind and someone else ends up paying for it in some way. I believe this is why glhf stated in another post he's a fan of the Fallout series.

I would argue that it is in the writing of the game. A good vs evil conflict is nice and simple, usually with a conclusive end that makes the player feel like the time he's spent had a positive (though virtual) outcome. Making players feel positive about themselves I think would seem to have an obvious plus side. Or consider the opposite... if a game consistently makes a player feel bad about the choices he's making he's probably going to stop playing the game.

I think you have to take it a step further than thinking, "if I save this guy then I get money but if I hand him over to someone else, they'll kill him and I get a bunch more money (or some other form of reward)". I would typically expect that choosing the first option (the theoretical "good" option) will probably open up more opportunities for me than the second. In my experience, letting the guy die will also probably close more options than it will create. The second option needs to open up more possibilities than just money and ultimately build to something.

It may be that it can't really be done effectively and that's actually a good thing. If the solution to the poor representation of evil within a game is in the writing and the best writing is when people write about what they know, it seems unlikely that you'll have such experienced writers that holding jobs within a game studio.

What do you mean when you say "2 guys"?
Do you mean a party system where you have a group of characters?
Or are you thinking of multiple story lines that interweave each other?

Also, what type of choice are you giving to the player?

I mean developers
Party system isn't part of topic exactly really.. sure you have evil and good party members but it kinda.
Game can be equally good with or without a party system.. depends on the game.