308: First Kisses (And Deaths-By-Molester)

[beema]

That game sounds amazing. Is there anywhere to play it these days (on a modern system)?

I agree that one of the major shortcomings of most modern morality meters in games is that they are single-axis. You are either Satan or Jesus, with not much middle ground. If you waffle a lot on decisions (like I do), taken the "immoral" choices almost as often as the "moral" ones, you still come out as Mr. Morals, which makes no sense. The choices are usually pretty mundane in their effects too -- you get a different item, or power. At most sometimes you will get a different ending cut-scene. Big whoop.

 

[SoopaSte123]

Wow. Just... wow. I played through Alter Ego and feel like I just had my life flash before my eyes. After playing it, I had to remind myself I'm 21, not an old man like I felt like after the last portion of the game. Just a brilliant game... using many specific examples of situations to evaluate someone's life as a whole. I felt a chill go down my spine no less than 6 times while playing. My mother and father dying were so sudden and especially terrifying.

Thank you so much for sharing this, Chuck. I will definitely end up passing this along to others.

 

[Unesh52]

I just finished my play through. I had a decent childhood -- I was a good child, though not without a temper -- a mischievous adolescence. I dated here and there, fooled around a lot in college... and then things got a little fucked up. The game started glitching and not following through with some of my choices, including my college graduation, which meant I had wasted 12 turns.

Despite the fact that I now had to go into business instead of research (which I found depressing in itself) I finally got fed up and tried to settle down. First gf was beautiful. Unfortunately, I reminded her of her dead ass daddy and she couldn't find me attractive ("I'm sorry poppa!"). Second gf was pretty fun in the sac. Second gf's husband turned out to be a jealous asshole. Third gf had a kid, but he was nice. He even called me dad. I asked her to marry me... and she accepted! I bought a house. We planned the wedding and the honeymoon and everything was going great. Until she left me at the altar. So now I'm old, uneducated, and unattached. At least all that MacSauce money was keeping me living cushy with all my toys. You know, until another glitch resets my debt and I'm suddenly in the red for 200 grand.

Hearing starts to fail. Bones become brittle. All of my friends die. I slip away into oblivion cold and alone... but hey, at least I remembered the outfit my first date wore, and all of my old neighbors, right?

Life sucks.

 

[Unesh52]

dub post

 

[BloodSquirrel]

For some people, yes, the trade is based on how they feel about the comic. For others, it's based on what they feel they could get from the comic in another, future transaction. That feeling may be based on a lot of information aside from personal feelings, but it is still very individual.

Here's where you're fundamentally wrong- people don't sell things that can be sold for $10,000 for only $100 just because they personally value it less. They may do it as an act of charity, or because they didn't know that they could get $10,000 for it, but not because it's just not worth more than $100 to them.

What someone can realistically expect to sell something for is not ?very individual?. It isn?t based on the seller?s opinion of it, it?s based on the buyer?s value of it. If you are a comic book shop owner, then you know roughly what you can sell Action Comics #1 for. You aren?t going to look at it and say ?Wow, the art sucks. Nobody will pay more than $5 for this!?. You?re going to look up what people are buying it for, and value it accordingly.

Using your logic, people might not think a $100 bill is worth $100 because they might not like the paper it?s printed on. In reality, since the paper itself is nearly worthless to them, the $100 bill?s value is entirely derived from what it can purchase. There?s nothing ?individual? about it.

Now, for the section I've bolded: how do you know you could see it for much, much more than that? Could be that all of the people interested in it already have it. Could be that they'd be more willing to just buy a re-print for a normal price, rather than go after an original. Could be that they disagree with your assessment of its condition. There's no guarantee until you find a buyer and get a guarantee from that buyer. That's the point I was making there.

The last copy of Action Comics #1 that was sold went for $1,500,000. I?m pretty sure I could get at least a cool $200 for it.

 

[DanDanikov]

I actually find the licence plate one a bit... frustrating? Firstly, I didn't feel like the context of it was properly framed. It seems acknowledging the man at all dooms you, based on encountering that event twice; I expected more randomness too, as with the other events, such as a parent or other adult intervening, or the man being genuine.

Secondly, I find it improbable for every child to encounter the murderous pedophile. Thirdly, I'm not sure what the event is meant to test. Some of the events seem to test you as the player, especially the knowledge type ones. Others test your desires and expectations on how to shape your alter ego. Given most of us are past the 'don't talk to strangers' age, I'd find it odd if it were testing you on this, and it seems like a strange dead-end: either you survive by being psychic and, using player knowledge, ignore the bad man, or you let your guard down for a second and die for even talking to him, even if it's in character for your alter-ego. I didn't see the moral dilemma there. There are a few in the game, but I didn't consider that to be one of them.

Also, I don't get how the licence plate is significant, although it was mentioned and I checked it expecting it to be something obvious, but nothing stood out.

This game does have moral consequences, and that's what I enjoyed the most and is what really makes morality in games, for me. While some smart alec could reverse engineer and expose all the internals of the game, that'd subtract from the magic. Keeping the stat changes somewhat distanced and under the covers stops you from min-maxing too much, and the flaws are just as interesting as the qualities in terms of game play. What really compels me is the consequences of your actions, especially with the random element thrown in. Sometimes people will react unpredictably badly to a good choice, or a bad choice/lazy choice will result in unexpected benefits. People don't always react in direct proportion to intention, as intention doesn't always show in action or the subsequence interpretation.

Most modern games have what I term as proscriptive morality- the developer has some internal notion of morality by which all your actions are judged, making your character evil/good or renegade/paragon or open palm/closed fist good/bad karma. By following this absolutist morality to the extreme, often certain choices can be unlocked or benefits are offered.

What it really feels like is some unspoken contract between the developer and the player- there is one dimension to this character, which varies from black to white. It is likely you will follow it mostly through to one extreme or the other (or stay grey, for the oft neglected third option) and maybe play through the game (extended replay) for the other extreme. This will never be fully fulfilling and in fact leads to only two (or three) replays. It also can lead to jarring disjoints where a player may have different intentions for a given action, which is then judged badly by the absolutist morality system and can really jolt you out of the experience.

What Alter Ego gets right is giving you pure feedback, unbiased, un-judged. Showing the best intentions, you may sympathise with your Dad who's lost his job and is feeling very bleak about life, but he may lash out, despite your high family sphere; it certainly biases it towards a good result, but it doesn't guarantee it. While some cogs turn in the background and the game subtracts a few points off a stat, I'm instead reading into a simple paragraph so much about a father that never even existed. I'm becoming invested in this character, despite my best intentions being spurned. I feel genuine sympathy for his plight and frustration over being unable to help him.

The other encounter I had with a similar, powerful sensation was during a Dark Side run of KOTOR2. Aside from the wonderful Kreia and her hard to impress (sometimes impossible) ways, and morally grey take on what's normally a very polarised universe, there was one scene that I couldn't chose for the dark points. I had many, so skipping it was an option, but I was immersed enough in the game that the sheer despair of my victim actually disgusted myself for inflicting that upon him. I save-scummed and took the higher road to soothe my own conscience.

That's what games need if they want to really portray morality in games. No morality at all, at least on their part, only consequences. If you can involve the player deep enough in the game that they actually feel involved enough to pass their own moral judgement on the actions taken on their behalf in the game, you don't need a morality meter, just good questions, unpredictable (but weighted) outcomes, and your own conscience making you uncomfortable. I think I could handle playing the Dark Side again, but only with a detached disgust for the character I would play- it is, after all, a role-playing game and not all roles are idealised reflections of ourselves.

 

[Dastardly]

Here's where you're fundamentally wrong- people don't sell things that can be sold for $10,000 for only $100 just because they personally value it less. They may do it as an act of charity, or because they didn't know that they could get $10,000 for it, but not because it's just not worth more than $100 to them.

I think where you're fundamentally missing the point is that I've never said this. There are many things in my life that I've wanted to sell... and while I could sit on it forever waiting to get my asking price, I've let it go for less because I valued the "bird in the hand" versus the "two in the bush," so to speak.

A person might sell that "$10,000 item" for $100 because they just can't seem to find anyone that'll pay more than that, and they'd rather have less than have nothing. Of course, that price difference is purely hyperbolic, but the idea is that a seller might have to accept considerably less because it's the buyer that decides whether it's worth it.

My point all along is that value is determined by the buyer. Not by the seller, and not by the publisher of the "pricing guide." If you want to sell something, you can't just say, "Well, this book says it's worth a million dollars, so that's what you have to pay!" Because they don't have to. But if you want to sell it to them, you have to adjust your asking price--or choose another potential customer.

Using your logic, people might not think a $100 bill is worth $100 because they might not like the paper it?s printed on. In reality, since the paper itself is nearly worthless to them, the $100 bill?s value is entirely derived from what it can purchase. There?s nothing ?individual? about it.

And that's why it's currency, not a barter item. We have an agreed-upon and enforced system of law that assigns a certain value to that item. The government does not have a department that assigns value to individual products, like comic books. These are items on the market.

The whole reason we moved to currency is that its value is more consistent than value in any barter system. Maybe grain is worth a lot this year, but next year there's a bumper crop and no one needs it--so now your grain is basically worthless. The next year, there's a drought, and you're rich! And comic book value is subject to those same whims and fancies.

The last copy of Action Comics #1 that was sold went for $1,500,000. I?m pretty sure I could get at least a cool $200 for it.

But then how much help is a pricing guide that tells you it's worth a million bucks? What are the chances you're going to find someone with a million bucks that wants this comic and doesn't already have it? The number is just a fantasy until a buyer cuts you a check in that amount.

 

[Pinstar]

That is amazing. Is Alter-Ego available to play online? I'd love to give it a go.

It'd be interesting to see if I could follow the footsteps of Pink from The Wall. ^^

http://www.playalterego.com/

You can also download it from your local abandonware site.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

That game sounds amazing. Is there anywhere to play it these days (on a modern system)?

I agree that one of the major shortcomings of most modern morality meters in games is that they are single-axis. You are either Satan or Jesus, with not much middle ground. If you waffle a lot on decisions (like I do), taken the "immoral" choices almost as often as the "moral" ones, you still come out as Mr. Morals, which makes no sense. The choices are usually pretty mundane in their effects too -- you get a different item, or power. At most sometimes you will get a different ending cut-scene. Big whoop.

http://www.playalterego.com/

Kinda reminds me of GRIOLE (or whatever the hell it was) from Hocus Pocus.

 

[Formica Archonis]

That is amazing. Is Alter-Ego available to play online? I'd love to give it a go.

It'd be interesting to see if I could follow the footsteps of Pink from The Wall. ^^

http://www.playalterego.com/

You can also download it from your local abandonware site.

Or grab a version for something like the C64 so you can state-save. Was very interesting, after a "straight" playthrough, to go through it again and state-save at critical points so I could see how life diverged depending on my choices.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I think where you're fundamentally missing the point is that I've never said this. There are many things in my life that I've wanted to sell... and while I could sit on it forever waiting to get my asking price, I've let it go for less because I valued the "bird in the hand" versus the "two in the bush," so to speak.

A person might sell that "$10,000 item" for $100 because they just can't seem to find anyone that'll pay more than that,

Again, you're missing the fundamental ideas here. If they can't reasonably find someone to pay more than $100 for it, then it's market value isn't $10,000. Market value isn?t set by a single seller deciding that he wants 100 times what anyone else is willing to pay for something.

My point all along is that value is determined by the buyer.

Market value is not determined by a single buyer either. It is determined by supply and demand- if there are enough buyers who are willing to pay $10,000 a piece for the entire supply of a comic book, then a theoretical buyer who is only willing to pay $100 isn't going to get his comic just because that's the value that he determined it was worth.

And that's why it's currency, not a barter item. We have an agreed-upon and enforced system of law that assigns a certain value to that item.

No we don't. The value of currency changes all of the time. It's called "inflation" and "exchange rates". Currency is subject to all of the same economic laws that other goods are subject to.

The only thing that gives $100 bill value is the realistic expectation of being able to use it in a future transaction. People don?t value it because the law tells them to, they value it because it?s backed by a powerful enough entity that they know that somebody else will accept it as legal tender. If this faith is ever broken the currency?s value will drop like a rock.

But then how much help is a pricing guide that tells you it's worth a million bucks? What are the chances you're going to find someone with a million bucks that wants this comic and doesn't already have it? The number is just a fantasy until a buyer cuts you a check in that amount.

Now you're just getting silly. If somebody paid $1,500,000 for Action Comics #1 (and by "if" I mean "go look it up on wikipedia"), [footnote]I misread earlier, it was actually $1,000,000[/footnote] then you can be reasonably sure that there was somebody willing to pay $1,400,000 so that the person who paid $1,500,000 had to offer $100,000 more.

The number isn't a "fantasy", it's market data. It's what stock brokers, commodity dealers, speculators, and all other sorts of financial experts rely on to do their jobs. They?re experts at what people are going to buy those things for. When you go try to buy a house, the real estate agent isn?t going to sit down with you and listen about how you personally value the house. He?s going to look up what houses in that neighborhood in a similar condition sold for this year, and he?s going to base his price off of that. If you offer him 1/10 of that he?s not going to care that you don?t like the wallpaper or whatever- he?s just going to toss out your offer and wait for somebody else.

 

[Dastardly]

Again, you're missing the fundamental ideas here. If they can't reasonably find someone to pay more than $100 for it, then it's market value isn't $10,000. Market value isn?t set by a single seller deciding that he wants 100 times what anyone else is willing to pay for something.

And you keep arguing against a point I'm not making. If that isn't the market value for something, then a book claiming it is the market value is not entirely truthful or useful.

You keep speaking of comic books as though they are as dependable as currency, and they're just not. Any sort of valuation of an item over time is simply a product of desire plus scarcity. People want it, and there are only so many. How badly that person wants it is very personal, and it has a tremendous impact on the "value" of that item in a particular market.

My point all along is that value is determined by the buyer.

This is another strawman. I never said one buyer determined the value. I'm simply saying within the context of a single transaction, it's the buyer that determines the value in the end. If the seller doesn't agree, there is no transaction, so it's outside the scope of this example.

No we don't. The value of currency changes all of the time. It's called "inflation" and "exchange rates". Currency is subject to all of the same economic laws that other goods are subject to.

Within our country, there is no "exchange rate." And inflation has far less impact on the value of our currency than even the most basic "market" whims have on a hobby-good like comic books.

The only thing that gives $100 bill value is the realistic expectation of being able to use it in a future transaction. People don?t value it because the law tells them to, they value it because it?s backed by a powerful enough entity that they know that somebody else will accept it as legal tender. If this faith is ever broken the currency?s value will drop like a rock.

Exactly. We value it because the law (a powerful enough entity) tells us it has (and will hold) value. The law doesn't "tell us to value it." It tells us the item has dependable value, and we believe it. But that is backed by the law. There's no such governing body for comic books, which is why we don't use them as currency.

When you go try to buy a house, the real estate agent isn?t going to sit down with you and listen about how you personally value the house. He?s going to look up what houses in that neighborhood in a similar condition sold for this year, and he?s going to base his price off of that. If you offer him 1/10 of that he?s not going to care that you don?t like the wallpaper or whatever- he?s just going to toss out your offer and wait for somebody else.

And if I get a house, fix it up, and someone tells me it's worth $1,000,000, but I can't find anyone that will buy it for $1,000,000, guess what? It's not worth $1,000,000. Same goes for cars--sure, we use the Kelly Blue Book as a guide to tell us about how much a car of X type in Y condition is worth, but in the end, that's not some kind of guarantee that you're going to get that much money.

And that's the only thing I've been saying all along about comic books, and also video game morality. Just because some people who claim to be "in the know" found out what the last guy paid, that's no guarantee that you're going to get the same price when you go to sell it. It's worth what your buyer is willing to pay for it.

And, in video games, assigning moral weight or value to an outcome has the same effect. Just because the writers tell a player that such an action has X moral weight, that doesn't mean the player is automatically going to buy into that assessment. It's better for the game to step back and let the player decide for himself.

 

[beema]

http://www.playalterego.com/

Kinda reminds me of GRIOLE (or whatever the hell it was) from Hocus Pocus.

Oh sweet, it's on Android too!

 

[BloodSquirrel]

And you keep arguing against a point I'm not making.

Okay, I'm not going to play this game with you. I'm arguing against the point that you are expressing using the English language. If you think that you're making some different point than the ones spelled out in your posts then there's really no proceeding here.

 

[Shjade]

"While you are outside, playing alone, a car pulls over to the side of the road and the driver motions for you to come over. You notice the license plate says OBO-237."

My choice: Curious/Helpful, but stay where I am.

"You have chosen an inappropriate response. (Or, at least, we hadn't thought of it. Please make a different selection.)"

Really? They didn't think of the possibility of a kid being curious, but not curious enough to merit leaving their game on the lawn? Hunh.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Having just gone and had a playthrough of that, and connecting more with that old codger than with some modern gaming characters, I have to say I feel hollow, now. He fell in love, had all kinds of experiences, shared a passionate life, then was left at the altar. Poor guy. Cheerful, though. So that's something. The consequences really do catch you up, in that game.

Guess that whole "Silver Tiger" thing came back to bite me in the ass, huh?

 

[Dastardly]

And you keep arguing against a point I'm not making.

Okay, I'm not going to play this game with you. I'm arguing against the point that you are expressing using the English language. If you think that you're making some different point than the ones spelled out in your posts then there's really no proceeding here.

Apparently your grasp of sarcasm isn't helping you understand that simple language any better. I think that in any discussion, the person making the point has a better idea of the point that they are making. If it appears that the two parties are arguing completely different things, it is a point of courtesy to ask for clarification, rather than telling the other person what they are saying.

Further compounding this is the idea that you latched on to a single small-scale example that wasn't even the point of the post (or the thread itself). And then you erected a strawman argument, I can only assume to show off what you believe to be your economics acumen, and proceeded to pound away at that strawman while being explicitly told it was a strawman.

Oh, but you're right, your inability to listen, read, and understand a point is totally my fault. Please. I can suppose, by your forum health meter, that this isn't the first instance of problem communication you've had. Bit of advice: When the whole rest of the world stinks, it might be high time you have a bath.

 

[Dash-X]

I believe the problem with morality systems in games these days is that they are taking place in a sphere where the risks are too high. When stakes are up and the chips are down, you really only have three options: You can be a paragon, you can be a dick, or you can be a chump.

The reason Alter Ego is able to pull off a "shades-of-gray" morality system is because your character isn't tasked with saving the world or doing secret missions or anything like that. The only thing your character is tasked with doing is living his/her own life as best (s)he could.

I put forward that the stark "black-and-white-and-50%-gray" morality system exists because if people were given a multitude of options, there is a large chance that nothing could be accomplished. Or, worst-case scenario, tons of content would be created that most players probably wouldn't see.

"Shades-of-Gray" is great for making a character seem human, but given the quality of writing these days, the character will most likely come off as being dodgy and inconsistent -- especially if the decisions are put in the hands of the players.

We can lament the lack of "Shades-of-Gray" in our games. However, the more I look at it, the more I realize that it's probably for good reason.

 

[Sparrow]

Amazing article, I usually skim through the articles the site showcases but this one caught me a little off-guard and I gave it the full read. I've got this Alter Ego game all set up right now and I'm going to give it a little go. Here's to hoping I don't end up in a landfill, all burnt and whatnot.

 

[Kermi]

I played Alter Ego as a kid and I found a playable version online a few years ago. I palyed it for days, trying different variations. I don't know what this says about me, but I never once managed to hold down a relationship well enough to get married, and only once or twice managed to have children.

The old age segments of the game are wonderfully written - as you're playing as a retired person who may or may not have family. Eventually you will die, and the more times you play the game the more you are aware of it. Sometimes you pass away in your sleep - hell, you can even choose the death option for when you want the game to end.

There was one part in particular that really got to me. You wake up feeling a bit stiff and decide to do some shopping and pick up some nice things for your family and get ou of the house for a bit. While out, you suffer a heart attack, collapse, and fade away while thinking about your family.

I actually had tears in my eyes.

The next time I played and that card came up, I chose to stay home instead of going shopping. I sat at home, alone, feeling lonely and worthless, and after an unproductive day of feeling melancholy I just went back to bed.