When playing games that present you with moral decisions for your character which are you more likely to choose the...

When playing games that present you with moral decisions for your character which are you more likely to choose the first time playing through, morally good options, or morally bad or “evil” options?

Attached: F1B89CDC-AEF3-42FC-AB24-CEE0EF6B9DC5.jpg (1024x1443, 433.6K)

Morally Good. Nobody knows how to write "bad" options without making them helmet-wearing retarded and evil nonsense.

Depends on the game and the character really.
Generally speaking I know being the pragmatic boyscout in an RPG usually pays off in the long run better than being an evil dick.

Whichever seems the most fun

Good just makes things go smoother. Games need to realize that bad choices should be making things easier. You should be making more money, stealing better gear, intimidating and scaring people into helping you instead of jumping through hoops. Good characters should have it harder.

Nootral guy who just wants to get paid

Attached: Mailman.jpg (879x1698, 208.27K)

Good because it's usually the only one that gives actual rewards. In RDR2 all you get for being evil is better drops from enemies while being good gives you several exclusive outfits and store discounts.

I'd say the solution is to make the choices based on differing outlooks instead of good/bad but then you run into the issues of the devs trying to make both decisions equally good and bad, making all decisions painfully artificial.

I can't even be racist or misogynistic in this game. The only "bad" things I can do is point guns at people and shoot. If I beat up the racist in St. Denis the police won't even react. If I try to beat up the world's strongest woman at the theatre she is hard coded to be invincible and force you to get beaten up. I can't even bang hookers. You can be rude or psychopathic. The game is too afraid to make you a straight up prick like Micah. If you could be a Micah type character the game would have been much more interesting.

sadly, letting you be Micah would break down the story

Silly to give me moral decisions in a prequel since the outcomes are already set in the cannon. Making us play a MC that never existed nor gets mentioned in the "sequel" just encourages us to be as non-morally obligated as we can imagine.

>I can't even be racist or misogynistic in this game
Then you're not trying.
Don't you ever get exhausted being perpetually outraged over nothing?

>outraged
You really overestimate how much I care about that poorly written modern politics funhouse of a game. But you literally don't even get dishonor for straight up murdering people like the racist street preacher. Its a trainwreck with very little choice. You'll be hard pressed to find a decision with more than two binary outcomes in the entire game

You're telling me you've never used gator bait to catch a gator?

>hey we'll present you with a morality choice thing but virtually every scripted action will be morally dubious if not outright evil, and we'll occasionally penalize your morality level because of it!
the only redeeming factor was you could spam HEY THERE MISTER and get it back

For some reason the game tries to to make Micah bad and Arthur good despite both of them doing the same crimes

>For some reason the game tries to to make Micah bad and Arthur good despite both of them doing the same crimes
RDR2 isn't high class writing by any means which is why I'm going to call you a retard.

Fellers

>MUH LUDO-NARRATIVE DISSONANCE
Every time.

I don't care about arbitrary choices like that. I choose whatever option makes the most sense in each situation,

>
>>For some reason the game tries to to make Micah bad and Arthur good despite both of them doing the same crimes
>RDR2 isn't high class writing by any means which is why I'm going to call you a retard.
Do you really need to do that?