Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHITE TO BLACK: DOWNFALL OF THE HERO (PLOT IDEA)
Posts
UPRC
5516
UPRC
View playlists
CloseI was just thinking of this concept and how utterly awesome it would be if executed well, and I was wondering if anyone on RMN has ever attempted it.
Basically, you'd have your main character. He/she would be a hopeful youth looking to set things right. They would, of course, be caught up in some kind of grand adventure like main characters tend to do, and they'd set out on some epic quest to save the world from certain destruction.
PLOT TWIST!
Over the course of the game, events and interactions with NPCs would slowly chip away at the main character's ideals and morals. Eventually, they would start to drop down the moral spectrum before firmly ending in the black. Eyebrow raising techniques would be employed to save villages (willingly let all the women and children die to stop a menace or something) until, far into the game, the very thing the main character was seeking to stop became their object of interest, as their skewed perspective of the world would lead them to believe that whatever world destroying thing they were seeking to stop would, in fact, be the source of redemption or something.
At the point of no return when the main character is unmistakably evil (to everyone else anyway, because they would still think they are on a path of righteousness), kingdoms or towns who were once allied with the main character would turn against them. These places would not be able to be visited, and the main character would then have to conduct transactions through questionable contacts (the grumpy demon in a cave, bandit/outlaw camps, whatever).
By the end of the game, the main character would be what they set out to stop. The game would end with the main character having to defeat a party of quickly assembled heroes from the towns you were formerly allied with. When the good guys are killed, the main character pulls a crazy Kefka move or something and rules the world with an iron fist.
So! Anyone ever do that? I think it could be REALLY great if pulled off well. The player would have to sit there and watch their party commit these really heinous acts, it could be tons of fun.
Basically, you'd have your main character. He/she would be a hopeful youth looking to set things right. They would, of course, be caught up in some kind of grand adventure like main characters tend to do, and they'd set out on some epic quest to save the world from certain destruction.
PLOT TWIST!
Over the course of the game, events and interactions with NPCs would slowly chip away at the main character's ideals and morals. Eventually, they would start to drop down the moral spectrum before firmly ending in the black. Eyebrow raising techniques would be employed to save villages (willingly let all the women and children die to stop a menace or something) until, far into the game, the very thing the main character was seeking to stop became their object of interest, as their skewed perspective of the world would lead them to believe that whatever world destroying thing they were seeking to stop would, in fact, be the source of redemption or something.
At the point of no return when the main character is unmistakably evil (to everyone else anyway, because they would still think they are on a path of righteousness), kingdoms or towns who were once allied with the main character would turn against them. These places would not be able to be visited, and the main character would then have to conduct transactions through questionable contacts (the grumpy demon in a cave, bandit/outlaw camps, whatever).
By the end of the game, the main character would be what they set out to stop. The game would end with the main character having to defeat a party of quickly assembled heroes from the towns you were formerly allied with. When the good guys are killed, the main character pulls a crazy Kefka move or something and rules the world with an iron fist.
So! Anyone ever do that? I think it could be REALLY great if pulled off well. The player would have to sit there and watch their party commit these really heinous acts, it could be tons of fun.
Spoiler of a well-known RPG Maker series
Also, not RM-related, but see: most Shin Megami Tensei games (non-Persona, of course), depending on your choices.
Didn't The Way do this?
Also, not RM-related, but see: most Shin Megami Tensei games (non-Persona, of course), depending on your choices.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Hmm. I tried to do something similar in Vindication.
I had a different way of ending it though. When the main character made his choice to go beyond the point of no return, he left the party for the rest of the game, and never returned. There had been several other segments earlier in the game where you played as a team that didn't include the main character, including about 80% of the first two hours of the game, so gameplay-wise this was not particularly disconcerting. By that point it was honestly almost expected.
The natural thing to do at this point would have been to make him the final boss - but that would have defeated the purpose of my story, honestly. In the end, as the title suggests, I gave him his vindication. I still made him pay with his life, though.
I didn't want the player to be controlling the main character while evil, because, well, I don't usually enjoy that as a player. Why would I want to do those things? If the main character went that far off the deep end, I want to kick his ass. There are plenty of other characters to play as, and I wanted to make the transition to those characters feel natural.
-------------
A better example, and one of the most famous, would of course be Warcraft 3. You start the game as Arthas, a holy paladin and the favored prince of Lordaeron. When an plague that transforms people into undead soldiers arrives in his country, Arthas makes some increasingly questionable decisions. The biggest one, where he finally goes off the deep end, is when a city receives a shipment of plagued grain, and he realizes that everyone in the city is going to die and be reborn as an undead soldier to fight against him. So he decides he can have fewer casualties if he kills every single man, woman and child in the city himself before the plagued grain can take effect.
Later, after his friends and allies have abandoned him, he finds a cursed sword. Saying that he's willing to bear any curse in exchange for the power to strike down the lord of the undead, he takes the sword - and loses his free will. But he loses it very gradually, and even the player doesn't realize it's happening for the next several missions. The commands of his new master start out as ideas in the back of his mind, but change to compulsions, to irresistable commands, to an audible voice.
Arthas becomes the champion of the undead army. He slays his father, and the paladin who was his teacher, and turns his entire country into an undead army. At the end of the game, as the lord of the undead's power wanes due to an injury, Arthas finally meets his master, the lord of the undead, who has long since lost his corporeal body and is now a possessed suit of armor. His power is on the verge of failing - it was all he could do to summon Arthas to him. Arthas puts on the armor, and the helmet, and they become one. The credits roll.
He's one of the greatest villains in video game history. He's a well-rounded, relatable, human, believable villain with an incredible amount of characterization and personality, with friends and history and a love interest and a family, whom you absolutely want to kill with every fiber of your being. That is just... so incredibly rare to find. You don't get to kill him until the sequel - in which they did a pretty crappy job with him, but I can forgive them, because his character arc is basically concluded already.
I had a different way of ending it though. When the main character made his choice to go beyond the point of no return, he left the party for the rest of the game, and never returned. There had been several other segments earlier in the game where you played as a team that didn't include the main character, including about 80% of the first two hours of the game, so gameplay-wise this was not particularly disconcerting. By that point it was honestly almost expected.
The natural thing to do at this point would have been to make him the final boss - but that would have defeated the purpose of my story, honestly. In the end, as the title suggests, I gave him his vindication. I still made him pay with his life, though.
I didn't want the player to be controlling the main character while evil, because, well, I don't usually enjoy that as a player. Why would I want to do those things? If the main character went that far off the deep end, I want to kick his ass. There are plenty of other characters to play as, and I wanted to make the transition to those characters feel natural.
-------------
A better example, and one of the most famous, would of course be Warcraft 3. You start the game as Arthas, a holy paladin and the favored prince of Lordaeron. When an plague that transforms people into undead soldiers arrives in his country, Arthas makes some increasingly questionable decisions. The biggest one, where he finally goes off the deep end, is when a city receives a shipment of plagued grain, and he realizes that everyone in the city is going to die and be reborn as an undead soldier to fight against him. So he decides he can have fewer casualties if he kills every single man, woman and child in the city himself before the plagued grain can take effect.
Later, after his friends and allies have abandoned him, he finds a cursed sword. Saying that he's willing to bear any curse in exchange for the power to strike down the lord of the undead, he takes the sword - and loses his free will. But he loses it very gradually, and even the player doesn't realize it's happening for the next several missions. The commands of his new master start out as ideas in the back of his mind, but change to compulsions, to irresistable commands, to an audible voice.
Arthas becomes the champion of the undead army. He slays his father, and the paladin who was his teacher, and turns his entire country into an undead army. At the end of the game, as the lord of the undead's power wanes due to an injury, Arthas finally meets his master, the lord of the undead, who has long since lost his corporeal body and is now a possessed suit of armor. His power is on the verge of failing - it was all he could do to summon Arthas to him. Arthas puts on the armor, and the helmet, and they become one. The credits roll.
He's one of the greatest villains in video game history. He's a well-rounded, relatable, human, believable villain with an incredible amount of characterization and personality, with friends and history and a love interest and a family, whom you absolutely want to kill with every fiber of your being. That is just... so incredibly rare to find. You don't get to kill him until the sequel - in which they did a pretty crappy job with him, but I can forgive them, because his character arc is basically concluded already.
This is one of Blizzard's go-to character development arcs - you find a hero (Arthas, Garrosh Hellscream, Grom Hellscream, Illidan to an extent, etc.) who begins as a hero and over the course of the story, in an attempt to do what they think is right, goes too far and becomes obsessed. It inevitably ends with them destroying or betraying what they were fighting for in the first place.
It's a pretty good cliche, though, because it's more human and believable than an outrageous villain like Kefka. If you're aiming for a relatable story, it's good to remember that in real life, people who do evil things often don't think of them as evil things - or do everything they can to justify their actions to themselves.
It's a pretty good cliche, though, because it's more human and believable than an outrageous villain like Kefka. If you're aiming for a relatable story, it's good to remember that in real life, people who do evil things often don't think of them as evil things - or do everything they can to justify their actions to themselves.
author=LockeZ
I didn't want the player to be controlling the main character while evil, because, well, I don't usually enjoy that as a player. Why would I want to do those things? If the main character went that far off the deep end, I want to kick his ass. There are plenty of other characters to play as, and I wanted to make the transition to those characters feel natural.
And this is where my thoughts fall as well. The character would have to be the most interesting person on the planet for me to want to play all the way through, so I could continue playing even past when s/he's past the point of redemption. Or the plot would have to have really swept me up with it to want to see how it all ends.
It'd be a daunting but interesting challenge to try to pull off as a developer.
UPRC
5516
author=slashphoenix
This is one of Blizzard's go-to character development arcs - you find a hero (Arthas, Garrosh Hellscream, Grom Hellscream, Illidan to an extent, etc.)
I don't know, I always felt that Garrosh was a dickish little twerp even from the beginning. Grom was interesting, because he was sort of the reverse of what I'm thinking of. His little story in WC3 was mostly one of redemption in my eyes after being bat shit nuts in WC2, and he's proving to be just that once again in Warlords of Draenor.
Arthas is probably my favourite character of this sort because, even though we knew what he was doing was ultimately pretty questionable and maybe bordering on evil, we could still understand why he was doing it. Arthas could actually justify slaughtering the people of Stratholme, and even he was aware that it was really a shitty thing to do. He just knew that the alternative, not taking out the entire town, would've been far worse. That's why I liked the downfall Arthas, we as the player could get what was going on. It wasn't unreasonable at all, and his corruption at the hands (or, uh, spirit) of Ner'zhul was just flat out tragic. None of that was Arthas' intention and, once he was on that road, there just wasn't any going back.
You know, I thought of another great twist for this kind of premise. The party members you recruit? They could be evil agents the whole time, subtly influencing the main character to go down a dark path the whole game. This would justify why they wouldn't hightail it the moment the "hero" starting to exhibit unsavory behaviour.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
A big part of this relied on what you're talking about:
The big thing you should be concerned about is not making it like Anakin Skywalker. "I should have this; it's not fair!" Don't make the character out to be a whiny git.
The big thing you should be concerned about is not making it like Anakin Skywalker. "I should have this; it's not fair!" Don't make the character out to be a whiny git.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I guess my question would be what purpose the story would serve? Tragedy is a perfectly valid genre, but it usually has a rationale beyond "let's twist again like we did last summer."
If the point is "you're controlling the protags as they do terrible things," I feel like a good chunk of today's AAA output is already supplying that in an effective format. If it's "watch in frustration as you can do nothing but aid in the moral fall of a person," there'd have to be some really compelling writing, and even then I can't imagine it being that fun.
I feel like OFF handled a similar character arc rather well, although it ultimately leaves the question of the morality up in the air, and the character in question doesn't really change: it's more a slow revealing of what his plans actually are, so audience perception is what's changed.
If the point is "you're controlling the protags as they do terrible things," I feel like a good chunk of today's AAA output is already supplying that in an effective format. If it's "watch in frustration as you can do nothing but aid in the moral fall of a person," there'd have to be some really compelling writing, and even then I can't imagine it being that fun.
I feel like OFF handled a similar character arc rather well, although it ultimately leaves the question of the morality up in the air, and the character in question doesn't really change: it's more a slow revealing of what his plans actually are, so audience perception is what's changed.
Avee
5794
I have a few projects that dabble with this idea.
In my opinion, it's vital here to go beyond the duality of good vs evil. There has to be sound reasons behind the playable character's acts of "evil", even as the severity escalates and their morality lowers, in order to justify and motivate those acts. The player has to understand the character's point of view and agree enough with it to a certain extent. Otherwise, playing as a character who doesn't appeal to you harms player investment and enjoyment.
Badly written evil characters are often dumb. They oversimplify situations or fail to see the bigger picture, focusing only on the things that support their own beliefs. The challenge here is to avoid doing this to the hero. The "evil" options must be possibly understood as the smarter, more logical choices and ultimately lead to greater "good" consequences than the seemingly good options.
And you can use whatever means you want to convey the theme: to obtain a source of energy/power that could change the outcome of the conflict, a personal struggle between the pursuit of self-accomplishment vs fulfilling your responsibilities/obeying the law, having to choose between smaller short term goals and greater long term ones, etc.
In my opinion, it's vital here to go beyond the duality of good vs evil. There has to be sound reasons behind the playable character's acts of "evil", even as the severity escalates and their morality lowers, in order to justify and motivate those acts. The player has to understand the character's point of view and agree enough with it to a certain extent. Otherwise, playing as a character who doesn't appeal to you harms player investment and enjoyment.
Badly written evil characters are often dumb. They oversimplify situations or fail to see the bigger picture, focusing only on the things that support their own beliefs. The challenge here is to avoid doing this to the hero. The "evil" options must be possibly understood as the smarter, more logical choices and ultimately lead to greater "good" consequences than the seemingly good options.
And you can use whatever means you want to convey the theme: to obtain a source of energy/power that could change the outcome of the conflict, a personal struggle between the pursuit of self-accomplishment vs fulfilling your responsibilities/obeying the law, having to choose between smaller short term goals and greater long term ones, etc.
SnowOwl
5188
I love these types of games if they are well written. Who wants to follow some boring goody two shoes defeating the big baddie anyway?
Man, something like *most* of my games explore this to one degree or another.
Including my current project.
Including my current project.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=SnowOwl
I love these types of games if they are well written. Who wants to follow some boring goody two shoes defeating the big baddie anyway?
Me. I don't really identify with people who choose to be terrible. vOv
Davenport
5200
I'm not a big fan of Star Wars plotline.
It's easier said than done but I'll do my best.
It's easier said than done but I'll do my best.
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
author=Soozauthor=SnowOwlMe. I don't really identify with people who choose to be terrible. vOv
I love these types of games if they are well written. Who wants to follow some boring goody two shoes defeating the big baddie anyway?
Haha. I do identify with some villain-types, but whenever I play games like Fallout or the first Bioshock where you're prompted to make moral decisions, I am always an obnoxious goody-goody. Possibly over-compensating.
Anyway, I've used this type of plot in game ideas. It is sort of present in the thing I'm working on now, in a non-rpg way though - so no epic battle at the end with your old friends turned enemies.
Another example is a villain who initially wanted to help people with his magic, but because he was an energy-sucking space monster that would harm them no matter what, he became bitter and full of self-hatred. He turns on the people he loved, is sealed away, then lovingly recreates them and their world in his dimension using his... brain magic. He's just really lonely. Hahaha
Neither of those plots end with the villain winning, though. That would be potentially an interesting thing to try to write.
One reason why this is so hard to pull off is because in the real world, being good, as in, actual altruism 'just because' is much more believable than someone being bad, or in a more extreme, evil than 'just because'. Don't get me wrong, there are tons of selfish, twisted people in the world, but those people very rarely openly thrive.
Consequently, this is true in fiction as well. There's very few fictional worlds that reward a player for making a habit of kicking puppies. Even in 'do anything' games like Fallout and Oblivion, you have to at least be cordially evil for anyone to put up with you, being an outright psychopath will leave everyone either dead or afraid of you, being unable to actually uh, really play the game.
There are tons of games that reward bad behavior, but creators have to be careful to keep the confines of how 'bad' you can be within a reasonable parameter to enjoy the game from a mechanic aspect.
Consequently, this is true in fiction as well. There's very few fictional worlds that reward a player for making a habit of kicking puppies. Even in 'do anything' games like Fallout and Oblivion, you have to at least be cordially evil for anyone to put up with you, being an outright psychopath will leave everyone either dead or afraid of you, being unable to actually uh, really play the game.
There are tons of games that reward bad behavior, but creators have to be careful to keep the confines of how 'bad' you can be within a reasonable parameter to enjoy the game from a mechanic aspect.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Feldschlacht IV
One reason why this is so hard to pull off is because in the real world, being good, as in, actual altruism 'just because' is much more believable than someone being bad, or in a more extreme, evil than 'just because'. Don't get me wrong, there are tons of selfish, twisted people in the world, but those people very rarely openly thrive.
Consequently, this is true in fiction as well. There's very few fictional worlds that reward a player for making a habit of kicking puppies. Even in 'do anything' games like Fallout and Oblivion, you have to at least be cordially evil for anyone to put up with you, being an outright psychopath will leave everyone either dead or afraid of you, being unable to actually uh, really play the game.
There are tons of games that reward bad behavior, but creators have to be careful to keep the confines of how 'bad' you can be within a reasonable parameter to enjoy the game from a mechanic aspect.
I dunno, slavery and conquest gave birth to the world's greatest civilizations (USA! USA!). It's not hard to believe it could happen in a fictional world with magic and the sort.
A self-serving taskmaster is more real than just about anything you'd find in your garden-variety RPG. We're just conditioned to want to be the awesome, popular, powerful good-guy we aren't in our everyday lives.
