Before I continue....
But I also believe in giving someone the tools to help them make the game they want, and to do it well. If done right, a dark game can be really amazing and thought-provoking even if it's intended as just entertainment alone. If done poorly, a dark game can come off as insulting and trivializing, and not even the "it's just fiction" disclaimer can hold water for that.
I acknowledge this with all the comments so far. Thank you very much. I know you are all trying to help. And I love that. Thank you.
And now, a response to a response.
So if you've got your Average Joe who is given the choice to rape another woman or respect her boundaries...what does that say about the MC? You say you also have the choice not do any of it, sure, but you also mention that the MC's main concern is going to jail or ruining their reputation, and yet what stops them from committing rape on their own or holding a gun to these women's heads is "human empathy". If the MC is set up as morally questionable or outright villainous from the get-go, then it wouldn't be as much of a problem. The problem isn't that he's a guy who's caught up in a fucked-up situation and needs to do fucked-up things to survive, it's that he's a guy caught up in a fucked-up situation who places a higher value for his own life above the lives of others and yet will apparently be portrayed as a "good person" who doesn't hold a gun to these women's heads because of "human empathy" nonetheless. You say "nobody's saying what happens in these stories is good", but if you're setting him up as someone who is capable of feeling empathy and then chooses to just ignore that empathy for the sake of saving his own skin, that says something different.
Morally questionable is more correct. To me, giving the game choices is more of a 'what the player would do in that situation' more than 'what the character would do.' It's more of a freedom thing. The reality is that he does have these options. And who doesn't? You can't point out even the most morally right person and say for sure that he doesn't have the ability to immediately change his mind and go on a killing spree. We have these options and what stops us is self-control and/or whatever is left of our dignity and/or integrity.
I guess one of the points I have to address is if the mc is his own character or if the player is the mc. I want to say a little bit of both. I want it to be like, the mc had a life before you started playing the game. He made relationships with people before you started playing the game. And now that you have some control over his decisons, you are put into his shoes during his situation and it says more about the mc yes, but also a little bit something about the player. So I want to try as much as possible to put them together. It sounds difficult and maybe even contradictory, but I'll see what I can do.
The "human empathy" argument. I understand that it does sound contradictory, and the mc is dealing with these contradictory feelings. As he is holding the weapon to the victim, even with the ultimate objective of selfish survival, would he not feel that the victim did not deserve this. That he feels that all this is unfair. That he wouldn't take a second to think what it would feel like to be the person at the other end of the weapon. Those emotions are what he is going through. And those emotions do not make him a good person, but it makes him human. And I guess that's what I wanted to point out. It felt as if everyone's saying the mc is a purely cold, selfish, heartless, emotionless bastard of a human being. But in reality he is struggling, he is in chaos. He's not emotionless, he's feeling horrible. And that's what I wanted to say about empathy. Maybe i'm just using the wrong word.
Killing first gives the MC less guilt over time? And you're setting him up as a good person capable of feeling human empathy?
Yeah. Sorry about that. That was my bad, really did a bad thing talking about that part. I was thinking more of the system of the game. Say, if the game is going to have any stats and attributes. Initially, when i wrote that post, I was thinking if I should impose a system that makes the characters around you more, suspicious. And therefore will affect how you talk to the police and how you talk to your co-workers and friends. I was thinking that with some sort of guilt-meter, perhaps the game will be more challenging.
Then I decided, nahh, probably won't be a good idea. Mainly because I wouldn't know how to go about doing that. So I was speaking in a very logical sense of 'how to beat the game' rather than talking about the actual implications.
So yeah, I take blame for that. My mistake.
If Average Joe is meant to be set up as a good person who feels human empathy and would rather not kill if given the choice, then his biggest concern over killing someone should be the fact that he's killing someone, that he's taking a life, that he's potentially putting their loved ones through a lot of grief and robbing the victim of the chance to live a good life, no matter how "justified" he may be in doing so. If his biggest concern is just having difficult seducing and/or attracting someone afterwards, going to jail, and/or having his reputation ruined, sorry, but he's a sociopath. Doesn't matter what the story itself says, if his biggest concern about killing someone is how it affects his own chances at romance or a successful career, that pretty much nils any argument that he's capable of feeling empathy. Even if the story is intended to just be "entertainment", that doesn't mean people can't take away their own interpretation from it. Even if he's intended to be sympathetic, that doesn't necessarily mean he is sympathetic, if that makes sense.
Ah. That is right. I can't take away people's interpretation of it. So what am I doing? Guess I like responding to comments. Besides, by responding to comments, i'm internalizing them at the same time, taking everything into consideration. But I am human. I might fail here and there.
Anyway, supporting what I said before, yes, he is very concerned about potentially putting their loved ones through a lot of grief and robbing the victim of the chance to live a good life. And he has to deal with that in his head. I also want to know what exactly 'justified' means. Because to me it means, 'a good reason for doing a bad thing.' And i'm saying that none of this is justified because he has a bad reason for doing a bad thing. I feel as if this word 'justified' is here as if some imaginary person is defending his decisions to be right when even I'm not doing that.
But again, the problem is how we're supposed to view him in light of these things, and you keep alternating between "empathy stops him from doing these things" and "yeah, he's pretty much an asshole if he does this". Ask yourself, "what sort of character is this guy supposed to be? Is he an anti-hero, a villain protagonist, or just a poor innocent caught up in a bad situation?". Once you answer that, then it's easier to see how you can characterize him. From the sounds of things, however, and I am just saying this based off of what's been described of him so far, he sounds an awful lot like a sociopathic villain protagonist who just happens to cross paths with another villain who's slightly eviller by comparison, and is like this from the get-go.
Empathy is more of what is going through his mind and why he doesn't do the deed at break-neck speed (Sorry if that doesn't make sense, I just wanted it to rhyme). And I alternate between the two to show what's happening and what I personally think about what's happening. In a way, i'm subjecting myself to my own story and I tell my opinion of it as if it isn't. Little self-conscious? Yes. I am. And I would say "poor innocent caught up in a bad situation" and I want it to be that way and not any other. I guess I described him as blank therefore would be easier to de-humanize him.
So basically, the MC does reprehensible things, is given the choice NOT to do them and nobley sacrifice his life so no one gets hurt but also has the choice to do them and become a monster..and yet this mystery guy is the one whom we're supposed to view as "THE" bad guy, as worse by comparison? If there's not much of a difference between the hero and the villain's actions, then the story is either an intentional black-and-gray/gray-and-gray/black-and-black morality story (which could be interesting if done right), or the story has a bad case of Moral Dissonance.
It's a bit confusing when I read this part. But I'll just respond like this. Mc is human, and my game will show very human emotions, while the mystery man is doing this for plain entertainment. The mc regards human life as important and he has to deal with his decisions for the rest of his life. The mystery man just watches with a smile on his face. To him, it's all a show. And to me, that's more evil. A man who shows no sympathy at all, a man who is able to show and even pride himself in the fact that he has very little concern over what he caused. His only concern is entertainment. Wanting to see the fruits of the evil seed he planted. Just there, silently watching.
And finally...
Look, I know people are going to say "let him make the game he wants"
While I'm pretty sure that's what people are quietly implying,
it seems people are more concerned of the darkness, triviality, and if it can be called controversial, aspects of the story.
EDIT: ^ Actually I take that back. It seems people are more concerned by a 'Problem' that they have with the story. I wrote it very quickly as a concept. People are pointing out the problems of the concept, and I'm addressing them. Like I said, to internalize the advice they gave. I take most of them into consideration already, but I don't mind being reminded. In fact, please remind me on what I have to do. I don't have much experience writing this kind of story so any input is much appreciated.
I like how you describe mc as Average Joe. Just for that, i'm naming him Joe. Joseph. Joe.