What Video Games Say About Our Morality
film / tv / lists / guides / news / love / celeb / video / think pieces / staff / podcasts / web culture / politics / dc / snl / netflix / marvel / cbr

What Video Games Say About Our Morality

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Think Pieces | July 30, 2014 | Comments ()


We don’t often write about video games on this here site, mostly because that’s its own rabbit hole. It’s like the Seinfeld episode where Jerry can’t go through with the threesome. Once we start writing about video games, we’ll have to get video game advertising, video game pictures, video game writers, and that’s what we’ll be. Plus Dustin passively discourages it, because since he was born a poor black child without electricity he doesn’t much trust those machines that think. True story: he types all of his articles on a vintage Underwood typewriter and makes TK put them on the Internet. That’s why TK is so angry all the time.

But enough with the half lies, let’s move on to the half truths.

Accusations of video games causing violence go back to when the first crude game of pong was played on an oscilloscope in the sixties, and the subsequent tragedy when the very first player two in history clawed out the eyes of history’s first player one. The fact that player one was banging player two’s wife was considered an irrelevant factor in comparison to the murder training that occurred on that oscilloscope by the first generation of electronic Chicken Littles.

Later generations of computers married the Satanist recruitment tool of roleplaying games with the homicidal simulators of video games, creating a devil’s froth of youthful corruption. Oh! That’s when I started playing both tabletop and computer roleplaying games! Good times, good times.

Like many readers, I have done terrible terrible things over the years to various bundles of pixels. And some of it is justified. I mean, you’re playing a hero, you kill the bad guys doing bad things. There’s nothing wrong with that, you can drop old school Catholic doctrine on that one, jus in bello. It took about ten minutes after the lions were called off for Christianity to point out that the whole “thou shalt not kill” wasn’t really talking about war or self-defense, because St. Augustine was like really, have you met the world we live in?

But then there’s the other sort of video game violence. The kind where you are not even nominally playing a good guy, not even remotely performing justifiable actions. It was roleplaying games where this got some of its start, games with enough thought given to moral complexity that being evil instead of good was recognized as a choice some players might make. But with notable exceptions of extraordinarily well written games, it was the dawning of open world games that really made a difference. If you can choose what you want to do in a fictional world, some people spend all their time picking flowers instead of fighting at all. And some people just burn down the world around them. You murder, over and over, piling the bodies all around like grim trophies.

It’s stress relief, it’s a way of letting out the demons that rage in your subconscious. Beat your fists bloody on a punching bag after hours with your boss’s face in your mind and you’re considered well-adjusted enough. But massacre every inhabitant of a village in Skyrim and suddenly it’s time for very serious conversations.

It’s not morality if there’s not a choice. A game in which you can only be the good guy will always be a ride at Disneyland from a certain point of view, a clever show on rails. When you play in open worlds though, the fact that you can murder everyone in the world is exactly what makes it a moral choice for you to not. Choice is the key element there, or we’re just automatons anyway. But the funny thing is just how many gamers I know who run straight into that. They start playing something intentionally on the evil path in order to see where that story leads, or if only to vent rage into the controller. And half the time they just can’t keep it up. They just can’t tell the little orphan girl to go to hell and steal her little pile of pennies. They just can’t bring themselves to shoot the stray dog for shits and giggles. And so they start evil and revert back to good because regardless of the fact that it’s just a game, the mind’s morality regresses to its mean.

I was playing Skyrim for a while, and realized that I was having no fun at all. Definitely not compared to Oblivion, the previous entry in the same series. And it wasn’t anything to do with the gameplay or the story or any of the other things that should rightly make a game. It’s because I wanted to play as a terrible person. I wanted to burn the world down around me. That’s what I’d done in the previous game, as murderous and evil a bastard as ever walked the fictional streets of fictional worlds. And I couldn’t. And it took a long time to figure out why.

It was because the latest iteration of the game added followers, so you could have an NPC tagging along behind you and helping out. It didn’t make sense not to take that person as a gameplay decision, but having someone else along was like having a conscience perched on my shoulder. So I wasn’t having fun because I was sulking along doing what I was supposed to do instead of what I wanted to do. It turned freedom into 1984.

Morality might be a choice, but it’s as much the people looking over our shoulders as our own morals that make that choice.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here and order his novel here.

Poker Player Lost $1 Million with History's Unluckiest Flop, Turn, and River | Five Better Uses of Your Time Than Seeing 'Magic In the Moonlight'

Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not

  • dragonchild

    My experience with video games is that I generally internalize the role-playing because what's up there is often not very well-written. My wife plays like an MBA -- she's a sociopathically efficient completionist. I find that's very common.

    But the behavior that baffles me the most by far are tabletop games. I'm a longtime DM with long-running dreams of open-world exploration, campaign depth, genuine choices -- you can save the kingdom or burn it down; I'm just going to have the world react as if it was real. The players -- being nerds -- are generally smart, list works such as Lord of the Rings or Game of Thones as their favorites. Then the dice start rolling, and rather than become their own version of Frodo Baggins, Tyrion Lannister or Luke Skywalker, every single goddamn one of them becomes Jar-Jar Binks.

    SLW I know you had a point to make about morality and stuff but when games turn men not into monsters but toons. . . you got some splainin' to do.

  • Coolg82

    I find your analysis of video game morality interesting, but I found it odd that you felt weird about fake murder as a result of having a fake witness to said fake murder and it made you fake conscious about your fake actions.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    Some games are good at affecting you on an emotional level, much like some movies can. Your emotions triggered by these games are real. That is what counts.

    Take Jack in Mass Effect 2. She reminded me of a woman I knew in real life (who was bald, too, oddly enough), so I reacted similarily to the fictional character as I did to the real character.

  • Daniel Valentin

    I tend to have the most fun when I make my character reflect my own morals. As in, I make decisions that I think I would in real life. That means I usually play as a good guy, but a good guy who's not unwilling to do some nasty stuff for the greater good, or to is downright vengeful when I think I'm justified. I played mostly as a good guy in Fallout: New Vegas, for example, but Ceasar's Legion's predilection for slavery and shameless mysoginy made me kill every single one of them I could find out of mere gut reaction. Would I be that extreme in real life? Absolutely not. But these are not real people, they are caricatures, and so I act as a caricature of someone who's willing to repay your mistreatment of women by laser blast to the face.

    There's also some games that REALLY make you live with the consequences of your actions, like the Mass Effect series. You have to be VERY sure of yourself to play an asshole in that game, cause the other characters will certainly call you out on it. Even being the good guy, you'll come across situations where things are not black and white and, what you think might be the best decision, could be a big mistake made with good intentions.

    Edit: Oh, and there are some games where you get a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and those can make for some very compelling storytelling. The two endings for Dark Souls, for example, are both quite grim in your own way. In both you seem to make the best decision for humanity, but in their own way, in both you're only delaying the inevitable extinction of the human race, with one of them making humans subservient to the gods and in the other making humans monstrosities that will bring the end of the world. Not a happy game, that one.

  • googergieger

    Much like in real life, I need a reason to do the things I do. So no killing people just for the sake of it in the vidja games for me.

  • Mark Maloney

    The premise of and most of the discussion following this post is in the context of RPGs that give the illusion of interaction on a personal level. How might the question of moral implications change if we were to include sim or builder experiences like Civilization? I know that I have an Asperger's or OCD like relationship with logistics, resource management, religious and economic nuances which when followed through to their conclusions have (imaginary) moral implications, albeit not as personally as annihilating a whole caravan of Khajiit..

  • DeaconG

    Galactic Civilizations 2 has those choices as part of the exploration facet of the game (you discover a planet with inhabitants that can be affected by your colonization; do you not colonize, limit it or go whole hog, with repercussions), the choices you make not only change the tech you receive but also how other races perceive you. Version 3 is supposed to play with this moral dynamic more, it's on Early Access now.

  • fate.scion

    If, in my mind, I beat the snot out of my annoying neighbor does that make me immoral? If, in my free time, I do the same in Oblivion, is that any different? Until you are playing an MMO where your actions actually impact another human being, who friggin' cares what terrible crime you commit according to the developer's whims in some altered reality.

    Moral choice in a video game is just like taking another path down the Choose Your Own Adventure novels. Sadly, it also is just as interesting.

  • JustOP

    Fallout New Vegas had a pretty cool morality system, in terms of who you align with, who your companions align with etc. I also like it because pretty much everyone in the game is killable - barring children and like 2 npcs.

    I'm pretty sure I remember playing it and reaching the roman chaps, whom offered Benny to me. After swiftly tenderizing his body with a variety of metal objects (and looting his pretty suit), I came to the decision that I didn't like that these roman fellas and their crucifying ways. So I turned around and playing 'dodge the shotgun at point black range' with their ruler.

    Then that little message popped up, saying something akin to, 'the romans aren't friendly with you anymore', and every npc within a 3 mile radius became hostile to me.

    Despite leaving behind a small countries worth of roman bodies, I felt I had done the right thing leaving that encampment.

  • Daniel Valentin

    Fuck Caesar and his slaving, woman-hating get. You did the right thing, bro.

  • Mark Maloney

    The only truly misguided and/or illogical whim I have in Skyrim is to smack that snotty little kid in Whiterun. You know her.

  • BlackRabbit

    "Do you get the Cloud District very often? What am I saying, of course you don't."

  • enigma7778

    Part of why this is genius: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  • Jacob Heubner

    I think, in a very real sense, our morality is tied to the consequences of our actions, and the reason for making a given choice. In society, there are consequences for being 'good' as much as there are consequences for being 'evil'. And it's the reason behind the action the evil of one action from the good of the same action done under different circumstances. It isn't just the matter of choice in a game that affects the morality of the character you play, but the consequences for that choice, and the reason you as the player have for making that choice.

    In the games I've played, the consequences aren't particularly significant. A different story line, but not one that was better or worse than the other. Access to different skill trees or items, but not one that is necessarily a game breaker that rewards one set of behavior over the other. A change in the reputation scale, or a change in the appearance of a character, but not anything with particularly significant consequences. If there's no 'reward' for goodness and no 'punishment' for evil within a game, then just because there are different responses to a question or different ways of playing the game doesn't mean there's any actual sense of morality involved.

    And, beyond the game, it's the reason behind that choice that colors the action as moral or not. If you're slaughtering villagers because you've had a rough day and you want to take out your frustration and the characters aren't real anyway, that's of a different moral caliber than modding the thing to make all the characters naked girls and killing them because you like the sound of the screams and imagine doing the same thing to the coffee barista on the corner.

    In 'real' life as well, it isn't just the choices we make, but the reasons for those choices and the consequences of those choices that informs our morality. In Sparta (so the story goes) if you didn't steal, you starved. If you couldn't kill, you died. The consequences for behavior dictated that behavior. And, a persons moral code is less about the choices they make, and more about why they make those choices, and if they are willing to suffer (or reap the benefit) the consequences of those actions.

    Just my two cents.

  • Stephen Nein

    Great, now I feel guilty for Castle Doombad and the thousands of heroes I've butchered.

  • PantsAttack

    I'm a total goody two shoes in my video gaming, but what I've found I love is wracking up PvP kills. I will defend an NPC till my last hit point, but be the PC joker on the wrong side of an imaginary war and all bets are off. Thanks, Elder Scrolls Online. I never knew I had it in me.

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    i haven't played many video games since college, but I am a huge fan of Telltale's The Walking Dead, and i was REAL surprised in the 1st season how having to deal with Clementine's reactions to my decisions started to affect the choices I made. Hers more than any of the other characters.

    and now in the second season? uff da, forget about it...

  • Danny

    If you liked The Walking Dead, you should give 'The Wolf Among Us' a try. I thought TWAU was outstanding - same Telltale group with excellent writing and moral choices to make.

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    its next on my list!

  • Ryan Ambrose

    It's fascinating how narrative and characterization dictate our actions in video games, specially in open world ones.

    I'm not exactly prone to fits of rage whenever I find myself rampaging through the streets of Los Santos in GTA V, since I think violence tends to be less cathartic in video games when it's aimless or lacking in story-oriented purposes for shooting people, bad guys or not. But considering the fact that the world of GTA is filled with jocular types and obnoxious people, I tend not to burden my conscience with guilt over running over a few pedestrians on my way to the military base to get that awesome jet.

    But if I as much as accidentally kill one innocent peasant in Skyrim then I'll most likely reload my save and try to replay that section in order to spare the poor soul. I can't seem to chalk it under "collateral damage" and let that mild inconvenience ruin my character's reputation, because I'm supposed to be the Dragonborn and saviour of Tamriel, goddamnit! Also, what would my fellow companion J'zargo think of me? But killing obnoxious, if innocent, pedestrians as Trevor "No, I Swear I'm Not an Amalgamation of Every Character Jack Nicholson Has Ever Played" Phillips in GTA V? Then I don't let remorse affect my playtime, and if you don't like the way I drive pal then maybe you should step the hell away from the sidewalk!

    Fantastic think piece, SLW.

  • Ozioma

    This article reminds me of why I've always felt dissatisfied with the Dark Brotherhood quest in Oblivion. Sure, you become head of the assassin's guild...but your members are decimated and the only survivors aside from you are some High Elf you've never met before the penultimate quest and three nameless scrubs with a tenth of the personality as the old members. It's like they made the quest but didn't want you to have too much of an 'evil' happy ending. Compare the other guild quest lines where you feel like you're leading an organization as opposed to a tiny club. As soon as I discovered modding, I downloaded Dark Brotherhood quests that let you expand the guild from four members to having chapters in every province of Cyrodil.

    If a game gives you a choice to be evil, then it should let you go cackling all the way beyond the moral event horizon. Playing bad isn't fun when the 'rewards' are meager compared to playing neutral/good.

  • Dove of Doom

    One of the missions in Skyrim involves assassinating a bride at her wedding, and you can do the deed however you like. You can snipe her with an arrow, blast her with a fireball, or crush her with a stone gargoyle. None of those were good enough to satisfy my malevolent desires, so I used a mind control spell to make the groom kill her, and watched in amusement as the guards put him down like a mad dog. Afterwards, I casually made my way past the horrified wedding guests and the parents of the unhappy couple. Those foolish NPCs didn't suspect a thing.

    You can find plenty of followers who are happy to join in the slaughter of innocents. I picked Jenassa, whom my character also married because their black hearts beat as one.

    Anyway, what's this thing, morality, of which you speak?

  • thatsmrsnyder

    I've put about 100 hours into that game, and missed that mission.

    Be right back... Must. Find.

  • Mark Maloney

    I put about 100 hours into that game in the first 2 weeks I had it. Probably 1,000 hours since. Yeah, I may have a problem. Always play as a brawling do-gooder. Magic is for wimps. YMMV

  • April Pastorius Wise

    I'm at 970 hours. Hardly ever change up my playing style (Sneaky archer thief). Still love it.

  • Dove of Doom

    You have to join the Dark Brotherhood which requires doing a favor for Aventus Aretino in Windhelm, returning to him, travelling to any other city, and then taking a nap.

  • Altius

    Your creativity is inspiring. I foolishly went for the gargoyle. Mayhem, yes, but there was no thrill to it.

    Your avatar is outstanding, btw.

  • Dove of Doom

    Thank you.

  • Tinkerville

    It's remarkable just how effective video games can be at stress relief. One of my go to methods was to save one of my RPG games right before a big boss fight that I knew I could win, and then load it up and destroy that fuckhead. It gave me a much needed sense of accomplishment and victory after feeling shitty for a while.

    I remember being incredibly excited when games started coming out that let you choose good or evil (Star Wars being the first one that comes to mind). Then I played them and holy crap, was I bad at being a villain.. I always reverted back to good very, very quickly.

  • sherryb23

    I echo every word of your post.

  • Daniel Valentin

    I love the Demon's/Dark Souls series in particular cause moral choices actually affect other players. You can be a dick and invade people's games and ruin their day, or participate in jolly cooperation and help them take down a tough boss, with them throwing "Thank you!" stones when you do.

    I know where I stand on that argument. Praise the Sun, bitches. \[+]/

  • Ryan Ambrose

    I used to like moral systems, however lately I've been finding the ramifications of the player's actions to be irrelevant in the development of the story.

    It usually boils down to either "defeat the bad guy and save the orphanage" or "desecrate Mother Teresa's corpse and crash a busload full of kittens" and get a 5-second cutscene as a reward. Bioware games have been guilty of this for a while.

    Where did all the ambiguity and nuance go, game developers?

  • thatsmrsnyder

    Has there *ever* been ambiguity and nuance in game morality systems? Genuine question.

  • Guest

    One comes to mind, a PS2 JRPG that wasn't localized. Mind you when people say "game morality" they generally expect multiple endings, and that wasn't the strength of this game. However, they did incorporate one attribute with in-game implications that stunned me: PTSD and fatigue.

    When you send a unit into battle, the unit's mental stability and stamina go down. Certain choices damaged morale; others improved it. Resting recovered fatigue, but if you were on the road you HAD to achieve your objective before the units got exhausted or they'd be sitting ducks and you're forced to choose between retreating or having them buy time by taking massive casualties until reinforcements got there.

    Oh and did I mention that these "units" are actually characters you interact with in the non-combat parts? After each battle you had to look at them in the face. This didn't change the ending, but it REALLY changed the makeup of the units. Some got stronger as they drew closer to insanity. Others, if you pushed them too hard, would "break" and certain side stories would be closed to you. Some units are much stronger than others so it's tempting to ride them hard, but those were often the ones most vulnerable to trauma. You could try to sub them but often the back-up lacked the ability to achieve the goal or survive the encounter.

    And the majority of the units, if they died, the game didn't end but they were lost permanently. All the while the AI is throwing armies at you from different directions, forcing you to triage between unit sanity, mission objectives and ease of future missions. That's right: there's also an open-ended time variable. You never lose the game by taking too much time, but the longer it takes to complete a mission, the tougher the rest of the game gets. This has a snowball effect that is BRUTAL if you try to be a "good guy". To top it all off, there are areas where you can extract the game's
    version of unobtanium to power up the units (making the game easier) OR heal their trauma. Not both.

    Every round there's a threat that demands unit mobilization, some unobtanium tempting you with its power-up potential, having to choose between the sanity of your friends and the sanctity of the mission. It's possible to beat it without taking any "easy" routes whatsoever but it is VERY hard. Despite being turn-based the micromanaging was so intense I'd literally sweat while playing this game. Pretty much every mechanic is designed to make "good" and "hard" synonymous yet all the out-of-combat rewards are unlocked through moral behavior, making the moral choice a downright masochistic experience -- you cursed the game for "making" you screw yourself over but the choice is always there. What they did is get all the incentives right. Evil sacrificed characters for expediency; good invested in them.

  • JJ

    The in-game systems aren't, and in my opinion have never been, that sophisticated. Typically it's the Fable-like growing angel wings or devil horns extremes.

    The closest thing that I've been able to actual in-game nuance is in an award-winning indie game called Papers, Please. You play as a border checkpoint agent getting to review paperwork and who gets to enter your fictional Eastern European-esque country. You deal with constant dilemmas about bribes, family, rebel factions, vigilantism, etc. Surprising depth considering the base mechanic is document inspection.

  • PantsAttack

    I think Dragon Age Origins had some good moments. SPOILERS: There was a quest where it fell to you to nominate the next king of the dwarves and you had two choices: one was who you might elect president, moderate, conciliatory and wanting to move the dwarves forward in a meaningful direction. The second was a total bastard who probably killed the last king so he could be the successor. Choosing the king, you'd probably go for the ethical choice (I did) but what you fail to understand (but SHOULD by the time you're done with the quest) is that the dwarven society is totally shady and unethical, so when you put the good guy on the throne, at the end of the game you've accidentally sparked a civil war. Put the bad guy on the throne and everything's peachy, because he has the dastardly skill set to deal with the constituency. There's another dwarf moment where you encourage one person to follow her dreams (so American) and end up causing religious strife.

  • ZbornakSyndrome

    Mass Effect 3...where my husband and I had spent years developing very different Shepherds (even different genders), and got basically the same ending. Made me feel like I had wasted so much time agonizing over my character.

  • Ryan Ambrose

    I know how you feel, I experienced the same sense of "wait, this is it?". Though I hear the final Citadel DLC gave people the dignified send off they were mostly hoping for. I wish I could give it a go but I'm afraid I've moved on from the Normandy crew. Maybe the fourth game will address this lack of variety and inconsequential decisions, if not then at least they will be bringing the space buggy from the first game back.

  • JJ

    Not to re-open this old can of worms, but having gone through multiple playthroughs of the entire series, the end is the same, yes. It's the interactions and differing sub-plots with the various crewmembers that prove the decisions to be anything but inconsequential or lacking in variety.

  • Ryan Ambrose

    Fair point, I may have exaggerated for the sake of illustrating my argument. Perhaps I was hoping I would get to unlock an exclusive portion of the game tied to some minor decisions I made in the previous games, instead of merely having my actions acknowledged by the crew members during an idle chat. But it was still a good two-thirds of a game.

  • Wilma

    I never take my followers with me. They get in the way too much.
    I did slaughter a whole town in Oblivion once. That really came back to bite me when lots of quests couldn't be completed. In Skyrim I play kinda good, but with a short temper.

  • ZbornakSyndrome

    I love Skyrim, and I totally use the dragon shouts on my dogs (with mixed results).
    But I understand the appeal of playing an evil character. Usually if I'm having a bad day: I just go on a rampage in a village, kill everyone, then load my last save point and play as a good citizen again.
    Zborny prefers to play GTA to vent his rage.
    I do agree, however, that truly open world games that let me decide what kind of person I want to be, are the most interesting games. Who knew I was so vengeful?

  • SLW, you know that some of the missions allow for you to offer the NPC follower as offering/sacrifice to some Daedra or other, right? To say nothing of the whole "torture the priest of Boethiah as Molag-Bal eggs you on" sidequest.

    A lot depends on the kind of game the creators make. Obviously. Games like Grand Theft Auto, that give you the freedom to go on a killing rampage, are built with that idea in mind. Whereas linear quest games like Assassin's Creed only sort-of give you that feeling of freedom, but they don't. They even tell you "Hey, Ezio didn't kill civilians!" as a warning for you not to stray from their (perceived) morality of an assassin.

    I tend to pick the light/good sides when playing games that let me choose -- whether Skyrim, Star Wars or Bioshock. But what I've found is most compelling is when games pull the rug from underneath you and make you do what feels evil but is, in essence, the good ending.

  • ZbornakSyndrome

    My 13 year old niece harvested every little sister she came across in Bioshock. It had never occurred to me to do that, and I'm now slightly afraid of my niece.

  • Daniel Valentin

    I did the exact opposite, and was rewarded with one of the most heartbreakingly beautiful endings in videogame history.

    Seriously, the good ending for Bioshock will make anyone tear up with joy.

  • ZbornakSyndrome

    I did the same. It was just disturbing to watch someone listen to the screams of a small child, giggle and harvest them...

  • Uriah_Creep

    Ha! I did that too. I like your niece.

    Be afraid... very afraid.

  • JJ

    "Morality might be a choice, but it’s as much the people looking over our shoulders as our own morals that make that choice."

    Especially when that person is an HK-47 assassin droid, meatbag.

  • Conor

    KOTOR was actually the game that stopped me from acting like a dick or following down the evil path in games.

    It was the woman standing with her kids near the spaceport entrance in Anchorhead, looking to get some compensation for the trophy from her late husbands final hunt.

    It was all she had to keep herself and her kids off the streets and fed for the night.

    Obviously, being the Sith bastard I was, I gave her a taste of d'old Mind Trick, sold her trophy to buy an even blacker, more bastardy pair of slacks and left her and her spawn to rot.

    As a result of this, my acting like a prick to a collection of ones and zeroes on a screen, I felt FUCKING TERRIBLE. I was walking around for the rest of the day with honest to goodness guilt over it, as if I'd just drop-kicked a baby into a pile of injured puppies.

    And that's why I now play as a no-kill (if possible/until it gets too frustrating), giving hard fought digital currency to the poor good-two-shoes in games.

    Except for Hearthstone. I will cut you in that game.

  • sherryb23

    Ha! I have had similar experiences. KOTOR 2, where there's a woman at the Onderon spaceport who needs one of the two passes you get so she and her children can flee persecution. In one playthrough, I forgot to give her one before all hell broke loose and felt so bad I reloaded.

    In Knights of the Old Republic, similar experience--I was playing as a Sith and did the "right" Sith thing which ended up with me gunning down a man in front of his child. I felt HORRIBLE. These games...

  • JJ

    Well met!

  • googergieger

    Yeah why come in every game being good means you end up dirt poor to start, and being evil means you stay rich throughout?

  • Sam Underwood

    Kotor2 did that to me. I saw how my evil actions in 1 fucked up my crew and never forgave myself lol.

  • "Cheating seems to be a relevant term only when one is caught in the act. Otherwise it is viewed as intelligence, no?"

    HK-47 was awesome.

  • Sam Underwood

    God, HK-47 was the best.

  • sherryb23

    Honestly, I'd have him in the party just to hear his commentary. I wish I had one.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    No, he was the worst. That's why we loved him.

blog comments powered by Disqus