Yeah, that's kinda me too. Unless we're doing over the top evil, the most mean I can really get is a sorta Chaotic Neutral sociopath who's more cheerfully self-obsessed than really evil.

I'm replaying Mass Effect at the moment. I decided to play a pure Renegade character and it was going OK for a while, but now my Paragon score has caught up because all the big decisions I made were "good". I just can't bring myself to do really bad things, even in a game!

It's stupid because I've already finished the game twice as a good character. I already know what happens :\

Do I mind? Is that a joke? I love to.

If only the player villains were a little better - I would like to be able to play as a ruthless, fucked up and yet realistically portrayed main protagonist (or, from another point of view, nearly an antagonist as you are in fact, a villain).

That would truly be splendid.

Unfortunately, I am yet to see a game that manages to grasp this concept. Oh, well - maybe it's gonna be done some time in the future (or at least something carrying a resemblance to it).

First time I play a game I always go the "good guy route" and think of it as my canon playthrough but the second time playing I always go for being the bad guy so I can see what happens.

Thought it be nice to find more games that would allow you to be truly evil (take over the world etc etc) and not just puppy kicking evil ( a jerk who has to fight the true bad guys) but I would go good first ofc:P

When i am given the option i always play as the good guy. But i don't mind playing as a villain.

I try not to play a villian, but I also try not to play a super good character either. Neutral has always been the most fun path for me to take because I can pick whatever I feel like without being restricted into an alignment chart. Its hilarious how in games with good/evil points I tend to get stuck in the dead center. For this reason I tend to play true neutral or lawful neutral in most of my D&D games.

The main problem I've found with most games that allow "bad guy/evil" choices is that they're all of the "Psychotic Stupid" variety. Likewise, any option that would make sense for a bad guy with the slightest hint of reasoning, forethought, or manipulative nature also gets tagged as a "good" one. The Baldur's Gate/Neverwinter games were particularly bad in this regard.

Fallout 1 and 2 (no comment on 3) were the ones where playing as a bad guy actually worked to some degree.

This is, as others have said, leaving out games like Dungeon Keeper where the whole thing is tongue-in-cheek.

There are only a few games were you have to option good/bad guy. And even less with changing the outcome of the story.
And yes, i love playing the evil guy.

I very much dislike being evil. In a game with a stupid binary evil or not evil choice, like say KotOR, I always choose good.

That said when a game offers more nuance I like to question what good and evil are, a lot. For example I tend to play the Dirty Harry "whatever it takes" type of chaotic good character in any game that allows it. Mass Effect's "renegade" choices are actually set up in just that way, and I could never play ME as a paragon.

So... I play good in crappy binary systems and "renegade" when possible.

I like good guy sheperd, he is like Superman :)

Boyscout!

I do!

But it has to be done well, For me games like ME don't count because you're still saving the galaxy, so you're not so much evil as you are a bit of an arsehole. I'd want to be able to pull a Saren and side with the reapers, helping them to tear down the last vestiges of sentient life in the galaxy.

Heck even in DCUO where you actually play supervillains the whole pushing suicidal people off rooftops isn't even what I'd consider villainy, that's assisted suicide. No, I want to talk them down, bring them to the realization that they DO have something to live for... and THEN push them off the building!

I was also let down in TOR where I ended up doing more taking on other Sith who were "even MOAR evils!!!" than being evil myself and taking it to the Republic.

I'd like to see things that change the way the game plays significantly, If i'm good yeah i'll help this person with their problems, if i'm evil I want something totally different, usually it just ends up as "dont start their quest" which just gimps xp gain.

I usually go with the "good" guy. But that is because playing as the "villain" is usually a total joke.

I love the new Fallout games. Sue me.
In Fallout 3, if you decide to be a villain, you are basically just a total dick for no reason.
However, in New Vegas, arguably every faction is evil. Choices are a bit more morally ambiguous. At least I thought so...
In New Vegas, I feel like whatever path I take, I am at least a little bit of a villain, and a little bit good. So, sometimes I like to play as an "opportunist", which feels kind of villainous without being just a stereotypical crazy asshole.

I'm not sure if this post made any sense. I apologize if it didn't. I took my meds about an hour ago, and I'm feeling a bit wonky.

This.

I'd really love to play evil in a game, but I have yet to see it done. All the "evil" choices in games are about being brain-dead sociopaths that make one-dimensional characters look rich and nuanced. Depictions of "evil" insult my intelligence. Evil in popular culture is always presented as the stupidest thing imaginable, which is completely unrealistic. Most would agree Hitler was evil, was he stupid? Was he incompetent? Did constantly fail at everything he did? I could rant forever on this subject, but instead I'll offer a solution for devs.

I don't believe in objective good and evil. I think morality is in the eye of the beholder. As such, I think a way to present "evil" in a game is to dump the infant definition and present it as one of several possible perspectives. Take politics for example. There are conservatives and liberals, and various others. Who's evil? Depends on who you ask. Some people support abortion, some oppose it. Who's evil? Depends on who you ask. Imagine a game where you played supporting either lib or con goals. No labeling of good or evil, just different styles. Players could choose whichever suited them best.

In short, have games with different factions. For example, A is the status quo. Supporting them will keep the region stable but perpetuate suffering of minorities and abuses of the aristocrats. B are the rebels. They will shake things up and bring justice to those that have been denied, but will cause a lot of deaths and supply shortages, possibly starvation. C is another kingdom that might make things better, or make them worse. And so on.

No good, no evil, just different possibilities. Of course gamers could argue which faction is "really" good, but if the factions are all flawed and imperfect (like in reality), then no clear consensus would be reached, which would let players form their own opinions. And IMHO, make for an interesting and refreshing portrayal of morality in a game.

FAR better than kicking bunnies because, y'know... evil.

Hey! Why you gotta be so-- oh wait; I see what you did there. :p



That's not a renegade so much as it is an antihero. IMO.



Have you tried Arcanum? Their evil route is pretty well fleshed out, with several exclusive (outright evil and/or thieving-based) quests, followers which aren't usually accessible to 'good' characters, oftentimes real-world repercussions, and even a unique potential interaction with the final boss.