LARGE'S PROFILE

To quote one of the comments in that comic site:

author=Some dude
…man, there must’ve been some people being really annoying about favoring 2k3 over the more recent RMs in a thread somewhere given the content of these recent comics.

Funny, cause the really annoying people are the VX/ACe's Witnesses knocking on everybody's doors.

I've moved 3 times since I started my game. I'm not out of Episode 1, and that is due to my obsession with details.

Perfectly done mapping. Keep doing what you are doing.

Is the RTP character a placeholder?

I don't... understand the intention if this topic, though... can you explain it to me in simple words? I mean, you want us to tell you that we create games to leave a moral example or lesson? Or... what?

Look, bro, you're smashing like 15 concepts in one without any clear direction, but I think I got the gist of what you are trying to say: how are you handling the moral motivations in your story.

Well, I'm not. I am not handling them; the morality needs to show by itself, brought to the microscope by the actions of the characters. I don't intentionally want to tell the world with my game "Did you see how the Main Character reacted to that plot device? Did you? THAT'S how you're supposed to react, doing good/bad!". I want to present situations where each character reacts base on his/her own motivations, perhaps presenting to the audience a moral dilemma where they would say "Oh man, this guy is evil. I would never do that", or "This guy is such a good guy it pains me; screw that, I would have banged the drunken chick", because, hey it is based on the all-encompassing gray zone that is the world. Note how I'm not saying the world "lately".

Gray zone, you say? Yes. Nobody is good or bad; there is no black or white. I remember an episode of Community (Yes, I get my moral lessons from there), where there was a debate competition; the main lead and the female lead vs two other guys, one of them in a wheelchair. The guy in the wheelchair argues that man is inherently good, while the main team counters with a man is evil argument. The guy in the wheelchair is losing, so in the end he conceives an off the books strategy, and rips his notes apart, while driving his wheelchair (automatic) to the main lead, only to break violently at the last moment, so his body is catapulted. The main lead catches him, and the invalid guy says "He saw a disabled man falling, he caught me. Man is good". The crowd roars and applauds. The female lead, seeing the contest slipping away from their hands, goes to the main lead, while he's still holding the disabled guy and kisses him. The main lead drops the other guy to better... eh, make out; she then, separates and says "I kissed him, he was horny, so he dropped the guy; MAN. IS. EVIL."

So, which one is right, which one is wrong? Well, both. How many times you go down the street and cross it only when you're supposed to, don't litter, don't spray paint anything? And how many times you laugh when the old lady trips and falls spilling the contents of the grocery shop bag? Or pass by the homeless guy asking for a dollar?

It is all in us. We have the potential to do good, we have the potential to do evil. Always. Even Jesus, and I don't want to start any polemic about this, but: didn't the son of God became so engulfed in wrath when he saw the merchants outside the temple of God that he flipped and started trashing shit out?
Yeh, I know what you're saying: "Oh, but being in anger is not bad". Well, buddy boy, let me tell you that the current accepted list of Cardinal Sins features Wrath as its first.

It is far more interesting to portrait moral ambiguous characters than to show do'gooders in search of crystals.

IMHO.