If evil is more interesting and engaging, why play good?
Because good is more satisfying? Isn't that like good being more interesting and engaging?
I can't shake the feeling that this all sounds like an argument to eat the cake while still having the cake.
so are you arguing that a good playthrough is intrinsically satisfying, and an evil playthrough is not, and needs extra mechanics to make it satisfying?
I'm not making an argument. Rather, trying to understand the argument being made.
Which to me sounds like:
"I'm upset because they are making the evil path more entertaining than the good path."
"Why does that upset you?"
"Because I want to play the good path."
"Why do you want to play the good path?"
"Because I find it more entertaining."
"I see. You're upset that they're making the evil path more entertaining because you find the good path more entertaining."
--that's what I mean about eating cake and still having cake.
In other words where is the sacrifice for making the good decision? The argument I'm hearing is that there shouldn't be a sacrifice.
Just like, where is the sacrifice in eating cake? Nowhere, because the cake is still there even after being eaten. No sacrifice.
*
Bobby plays evil.
Sally plays good.
They both look exactly the same at the end of the game. Same stats, items, power, everything. Except Bobby fell for temptation every time and always chose to take power over anything else. It's a wasteland out there in Bobby's game. He made tons of sacrifices for all the power he got.
Sally didn't give in. She didn't fall for temptation.
And for all those decisions? Same result.
What the heck was the point of Bobby taking the temptation? What did he get out of it?
All it is is wanting the best of both worlds. Far as I can figure.
