Possessed

I think that could be an interesting game to play.

Chuck the hot dog vendor is possesed by some inescapable rage upon seeing pizzas. The dark urges get more pronounced as Chuck reaches closer proximity. He almost destroyed the whole Pizza Palace when he ate a pizza for the first time.

His arch rival, Tom, wants to compete against him in business. He decides to open a pizza by the slice cart.

Chuck's girlfriend Suzie, wants Chuck to learn to control his anger, especially since that time they went out to get pizza for the first time at Pizza Palace. She hates guys like that, especially since she broke it off with Tom.

Something like that?

It'll be tricky convincing the character work against his own interests while possessed. You could simply limit the character's choices ("would you like to a. punch the nun, or b. kick the nun?") but that would lead to a feeling of loss of control -- the bad kind, not the intentional kind. It would also encourage the worst kind of minmaxing ("looks like that nun's got a pretty strong jaw. I'll go for the punch.")

Try this. First of all, don't make the character randomly evil. Make him randomly vulnerable. The art will be a key component of it. You're on a street corner, preparing to help a nun cross the street. Suddenly, it happens again, and you're in a fire-blown wasteland with a grinning creature made of rotting teeth holding your arm. Punching it is the same as punching the nun in the real world, but you really don't have a choice: this world cannot be gainfully disbelieved. If you smile and help the tooth monster across the street, you really will be eaten alive by the time you get to the other side; the damage might be psychic rather than physical in nature, but it will kill you. Running away won't help either; every second you are in this world gives it more power over you. The only choice is decisive, cruel action, and accepting whatever the real-world consequences are.

That's a combat-heavy reimagining, but it could easily be converted to a less violent form. The key factor, I think, is to appeal to the one desire that grips players more strongly than philanthropy: immediate, pressing self-interest.

Yeah this is pretty interesting. Theres a couple ways I can think of implementing this:

- Make it an rpg, allowing a lot of the decisions you make to be obvious and transparent because they're selected from a menu (or similar). If you want to make the effects really obvious you could just gray out the "friendly" options and have additional "evil" options available.

- Make it some sort of action/adventure game with extremely context-sensitive controls. The player would get used to "A" doing all sorts of different actions depending on the situation, and then you make it do more hostile things when influence is active.

- You could even do an RTS of some sort, where you default to attacking allies (or something like that) when influence is active.

I can imagine any of these ideas could be frustrating to play, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Also, you mentioned that you wouldn't know when you were about to be possessed. It could be interesting (more so in like an RTS setting) if it was more like a warewolf thing, where you know exactly when its going to happen and you have to incorporate it into your strategy.

Cool idea.


Edit:
About sneftel's idea: that sounds great. I think you can make it more of an option than what you're saying if you'd like to. For example, establish some gameplay where if you don't attack first, you could get screwed pretty hard by enemies. Then, have the "demon world" make it very difficult to distinguish actual real-life enemies from actual real-life allies. These two facts would combine to make a game where (some) players would attack everyone just to be safe.

Sneftel: What you describe would be ideal for a psychotic character. It would cause players to willingly role play the ordeal by twisting their perception.

But I was thinking of something less delusional. Your character should be completely aware of what's going on. They have their inhibitions and morality taken away from them, but not necessarily all of it. Just enough to put them on extreme edge. You could still choose to show mercy in some situations.

Think of interaction options landing along a line something like this:

Self sacrifice, save, help, comfort, ignore, insult, take, hurt, revenge, destroy

Being influenced would slide your options to the right. People who are helpful to you won't be automatically targetted for aggression. You would probably just be less friendly to them. Enemies, and those who give you trouble would feel most of the effect.

I do like the idea of being under control of those "urges" or whatever allows them more power over you and may increase the length of those episodes. Eventually, you could have were the controls reached a point where you were hardly ever bothered or bothered increasingly frequently.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Sneftel: What you describe would be ideal for a psychotic character. It would cause players to willingly role play the ordeal by twisting their perception. But I was thinking of something less delusional.

Delusional? Nah. I suppose you could spin it as a delusions, but IMHO it would work better as something that's actually happening.

Quote:

Your character should be completely aware of what's going on. They have their inhibitions and morality taken away from them, but not necessarily all of it. Just enough to put them on extreme edge. You could still choose to show mercy in some situations.

But morality and inhibitions are housed in the player, not in the character.

Quote:

Being influenced would slide your options to the right. People who are helpful to you won't be automatically targetted for aggression. You would probably just be less friendly to them. Enemies, and those who give you trouble would feel most of the effect.

When was the last time you wanted to be able to take a particular action (which in the real world would be entirely possible) in the game, but the game wouldn't let you, and you thought to yourself "It's really fun and awesome that my abilities have been artificially limited"?

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel Delusional? Nah. I suppose you could spin it as a delusions, but IMHO it would work better as something that's actually happening.

But it's not actually happening to the nun you're helping across the street, so it may as well be a delusion when you attack her without reason. Your character wouldn't seem very rational to the game world.

I was considering something less intense. You would be helpful and friendly to normal people while not influenced, or short tempored and greedy with them when you are. You wouldn't be required to attack innocent people. You just wouldn't be very nice to them. When it comes to less friendly characters, the effect could be more dramatic. Again, consider Superman on red K, or black Spiderman. That type of behavior.

Quote:

When was the last time you wanted to be able to take a particular action (which in the real world would be entirely possible) in the game, but the game wouldn't let you, and you thought to yourself "It's really fun and awesome that my abilities have been artificially limited"?

I've played plenty of games that limit the player's options according to the player character's personality. This would be no different, except the character's personality would change. I think the fact that you have little choice is one of the biggest appeals. How else can a morally strong character become cruel? The chemical is forcing you to behave that way.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: When was the last time you wanted to be able to take a particular action (which in the real world would be entirely possible) in the game, but the game wouldn't let you, and you thought to yourself "It's really fun and awesome that my abilities have been artificially limited"? I've played plenty of games that limit the player's options according to the player character's personality.

According to the character's personality, yes. And when that character's desires don't match up with your own? Haven't you ever had a dialog tree come up where every single one of the options was between 155° and 180° away from what you actually felt like saying? Did this make you like the game more or less?

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel Quote: Original post by Kest Quote: When was the last time you wanted to be able to take a particular action (which in the real world would be entirely possible) in the game, but the game wouldn't let you, and you thought to yourself "It's really fun and awesome that my abilities have been artificially limited"? I've played plenty of games that limit the player's options according to the player character's personality. According to the character's personality, yes. And when that character's desires don't match up with your own? Haven't you ever had a dialog tree come up where every single one of the options was between 155° and 180° away from what you actually felt like saying? Did this make you like the game more or less?

Depends on the context I suppose. If it made sense within the story of the game I'd be interested to see where that choice leads.

I for one think this could work. I'd love to play a game where at seemingly random occurances I become an anti-me. I'd think it would be even more interesting if you did it both ways. So take a kotor light / dark system and then add in the character flipping. How choices made while under the influence of this chemical should be treated... I'm not sure. After all if you have no choice but to do an evil deed should you be punished for it? At the same time perhaps you could have your characters inward traits of light or dark and then have an external reputation. This could be in terms of fair or unjust. Are you reputable or disreputable? That sort of thing.

I don't think its necessarily bad design to force players to do things they don't want to do. I feel like games as art share some similarities with other media; an unpleasant experience in a game can be compared to a dissonant note in a piece of music?

Maybe this is a different discussion.

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel Quote: Original post by Kest Quote: When was the last time you wanted to be able to take a particular action (which in the real world would be entirely possible) in the game, but the game wouldn't let you, and you thought to yourself "It's really fun and awesome that my abilities have been artificially limited"? I've played plenty of games that limit the player's options according to the player character's personality. According to the character's personality, yes. And when that character's desires don't match up with your own? Haven't you ever had a dialog tree come up where every single one of the options was between 155° and 180° away from what you actually felt like saying? Did this make you like the game more or less?

In a game that didn't govern your choices by your character's personality, this concept wouldn't serve much use. You would already have the capacity to do good or bad around every corner. You could even do both at the same time - save someone, then punch them in the face.

I disagree with player character choices plenty, but that doesn't make me enjoy the character or game any less. I actually prefer to be restricted to options that fit the character. If I'm role playing a hero character, I don't want an option to mug innocent people on the street. Probably a highly opinionated concern, though.

The same is true with TV shows or movies. The hero characters show far more lenience toward annoying bad guys than I would. But I realize that my preferred choice would be out of their character. Shove that alien out of the nearest airlock, Mr. Spock.

Quote:

Original post by Kriuq I don't think its necessarily bad design to force players to do things they don't want to do.

Of course it isn't. I don't want to jump out this window, but there's a giant monster coming after me. I don't want to go to Ravenholm, but it's the only way to get where I need to go. I don't want to reload, but I'm out of bullets.

This, however, is very different from forcing players to want to do things they don't want to do.

Quote:

Original post by Kest I disagree with player character choices plenty, but that doesn't make me enjoy the character or game any less. I actually prefer to be restricted to options that fit the character. If I'm role playing a hero character, I don't want an option to mug innocent people on the street. Probably a highly opinionated concern, though.

I actually agree with this. Look at knights of the old republic. I could be maxed light side and then pick and chose when I'm nice to people. Which incidentally is what I did. I would attain max light side points then flirt with the dark side. There was always enough quests to get the light side back to max relatively quickly. In the end the choice of light or dark side became moot.

I really like the sound of this, especially werewolf involvement.

How about one element triggers the transformation/corruption, but another acts as protection? But it can't be as easy as wearing the protecting element round your neck or something...

I know this might be slightly missing the point having read the other posts, but how about something where being evil or whatever helps you. For example, it might allow you to get more money because you are shrewd. The more times you do bad things, the harder it is to do good but the line between good and bad has been blurred. This is an actual thing you can create within the real player (although that is always a risky path).

For example, when I started playing Oblivion, I didn't ever break the law, then when I joined the Dark Brotherhood because I accidental killed someone, I realised it wasn't so bad. Then today, I saw some guy walking somewhere, no guards around, so I struck him down. He wasn't wearing anything valuable, but I took his key to rob his house later.

Now obviously this won't be the same for each player, so you might have to do something within the game, maybe because you do evil stuff, people aren't prepared to do the good stuff with you. Obviously, to balance this, maybe evil is short term benefits, you get more money, good is long term, the person likes you more so will give you more money in the future. Obviously, this is leaning towards Fable quite a bit.

I would need a strong reason to act against my own intrinsic morality. I'm almost always the paladin. If I arbitrarily turn into a werewolf, I'm going to want to be able to control it at least to the point where I can get to all the scumsucking lowlifes of the town (like crashing the Thieve's Guild?).

For me, this is akin to the vampire choices in Morrowind (prey on people or on animals). I always chose the animals.

I've tried playing pure evil in games like Jade Empire (freeing slaves then sending them to the slaver) and I feel the same way I feel about most nihilistic games like GTA or Saint's Row-- what's the point? The responses of the world actually make me feel bad. And I've never encountered a story that has a big enough draw to make it worthwhile. I tend to feel you always have a choice, even if it's what bridge to jump off of.

I think I could accept it if there were some way to model self control, perhaps with a minigame. But even if I lost, I probably would spend most of my forced evil time figuring out how to beat the system or jink the AI.

Probably not the most helpful answer, but us goody-two-shoes are out there. (And, uh, if it helps my GameDev gamer cred any, I'm an evil Stalinist bastard when playing Civ...[grin])

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator I'm almost always the paladin. If I arbitrarily turn into a werewolf, I'm going to want to be able to control it at least to the point where I can get to all the scumsucking lowlifes of the town (like crashing the Thieve's Guild?).

I may have exaggerated in the original post. The character I have pictured in my head isn't really evil. Or at least not when it comes to friendly or innocent people. The player would seem pretty arrogant to them, but not violent or harmful. Still, compared to the player character's normal responses, it will be a strong change. A simple dialog example:

We're pretty low on supplies. Bandits have raided our food storage compartments three times this week.

Good:
1. Is there anything I can do to help?
2. I'm sorry to hear that. Let me see what you have anyway.
3. I'll keep an eye out for them. (EXIT)

Bad:
1. And why would you think I care about your pest problems? I'm here to buy something.
2. Then you should give me a discount for my inconvenience.
3. Then I'm wasting my time here. (EXIT)

This example doesn't change anything fundamental about the interaction. You still have the same options, but you present yourself differently. Some situations would change the type of actions you can take, but most will still give you the flexibility to be lenient on specific individuals. Or at the very least, allow you to insult them instead of attacking them.

Quote:

I think I could accept it if there were some way to model self control, perhaps with a minigame. But even if I lost, I probably would spend most of my forced evil time figuring out how to beat the system or jink the AI.

I think the fact that you can't control it will alleviate a lot of your negative feelings. If you choose the least negative interaction option, then you've done everything you can to avoid being a monster with that person. It's not your or your character's fault. It's the substance.

Quote:

Probably not the most helpful answer, but us goody-two-shoes are out there.

I'm probably worse off than you are. I have a very immersive imagination. My choices in games perfectly reflect those I make in the real world. I can't role play an evil character without feeling guilty. But I think this would be something different. For one thing, it would be designed to be fun. Your negative side would pop up when it would be the most entertaining to see it, not to make you feel bad.

I actually have a similar plot element to this in a story I'm writing. The main antagonist starts off as a renegade professor who was exiled from the city that the book focusses on, and he's far more of a misunderstood protagonist than even an anti-hero. His troubles start when he accidently invites a bound god into his body while performing a spell in an abandoned temple, causing his world view to be altered. His morals don't change at all, but his body changes (not noticably to him; it is gradual), and his world-view changes significantly over a long period. He eventually kills the (normal-ish in morals) king because he believes that the monarchy are supressing knowledge from the people and keeping control of all new research themselves. Anyway, the way I portrayed it was that his perception of events would be different to if he was entirely 'sober'. For example, in his 'good' form, the character may see a situation like this:

The old man winks at you, giving you a little smile.
"I have the information you need - for a price."
His smile becomes warmer as he eyes the purse at your belt.

a) "Name your price."
b) "You'd best be sure that it's the truth, old man."
c) "Wrong. The information will be free."

Whereas the 'evil' form could see it in a different way:

The old man gives you a brief wink, a smirk playing around his lips:
"I have the information you need - for a price."
His smile widens, revealing a mouth full of poorly-kept teeth that grins too widely for your liking. His eye seems to be focussed at your purse - no doubt he is ready to snatch it at a moment's break in focus.

a) "Name your price."
b) "You'd best be sure that it's the truth, old man."
c) "Wrong. The information will be free."

This way, while you imply different information to your player, the options are the same. It manipulates the player into believing a subtly different situation that may make them paranoid or see other people as selfish. This way, the player still chooses their own path, while having different information to base it on.

How about the character having uncontrollable urges to do evil things? Ignoring them slowly eats away at your performance, and the only way to come back to 100% is feeding the beast within. Your ultimate goal is to do good, but to achieve it you must fuel it with horrible deeds.

Let the player choose his own sins to make them more effective emotionally. Picking from a few pre-made choices doesn't maybe feel as depressing as having to plan and execute them on your own.

You could either be a small pain in everyone's butt, or a champion of good who occasionally murders orphans with a blowtorch. The extreme player could try to do no evil, speeding through the game in a race with his deteriorating peace of mind.