I think there's a pretty clear right answer to the first version you posted. don't pull the switch. fatty doesn't die and 5 people live.tkioz said:
Epic Mickey Offers No Choice
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
It's interesting that he brought up Mass Effect, because the second game actually offered a choice rather like the one he wished had made it into Epic Mickey.
The big downside to this is that one option nets you paragon points while the other gains renegade points, effectively telling players what the so called right and wrong choices are. It's too bad, because it's one of those few gray areas in the game, and in dolling out points it cheapens the value.
Personally, I'd like to see a game that has moral choices, but no karma meter. Dragon Age did it pretty well, though companions still had approval meters. "Evil" companions approved of morally ambiguous actions, while "good" characters liked petting puppies and brightening the days of young children. In the end, there was still a method for keeping track of just how big of a dick you were. I'd really like to see a modern game keep the moral choices, lose the meter, and let the consequences speak for themselves.
Actually, Alpha Protocol did something like that. It was one of the few things NOT terribly broken, but since the game tanked so poorly, I'll be surprised if we see any other devs implementing a similar system.
During Legion's loyalty mission, Shepard has the choice between re-programming the geth--who Legion says were only serving Saren and Sovereign because of bad math--or destroy them. The moral implications of taking away an entire species' free will is definitely mentioned, as is the question as to whether or not a synthetic species can even have free will.
The big downside to this is that one option nets you paragon points while the other gains renegade points, effectively telling players what the so called right and wrong choices are. It's too bad, because it's one of those few gray areas in the game, and in dolling out points it cheapens the value.
Personally, I'd like to see a game that has moral choices, but no karma meter. Dragon Age did it pretty well, though companions still had approval meters. "Evil" companions approved of morally ambiguous actions, while "good" characters liked petting puppies and brightening the days of young children. In the end, there was still a method for keeping track of just how big of a dick you were. I'd really like to see a modern game keep the moral choices, lose the meter, and let the consequences speak for themselves.
Actually, Alpha Protocol did something like that. It was one of the few things NOT terribly broken, but since the game tanked so poorly, I'll be surprised if we see any other devs implementing a similar system.
"That one really comes down to the much larger question: is it better to be happy and ignorant, or miserable and have all the answers? If that dichotomy had been the basis of Epic Mickey, it would have been a lot more interesting. You could either spray enemies with Ignorance juice, which sends them into a dream of paradise but in permanent coma, or Answers juice, which gives them full understanding of the universe, but makes them too busy weeping into their cappuccinos to fight."
So basically instead of Epic Mickey Yahtzee would have preferred the game to be EMO Mickey ;-)
So basically instead of Epic Mickey Yahtzee would have preferred the game to be EMO Mickey ;-)
Moral choice systems in games are still maturing, but as far as I'm concerned, Bioware has definitely explored this the most effectively. I see a lot of love for Mass Effect in the thread.
Any of you guys play Jade Empire? That was one of my all-time favorites in terms of role-playing/dialog/branching stories, and one of the few games where I could actually stomach playing through the story as the "evil" character. Instead of calling the moral system in the game "good vs evil", it was about two competing philosophies, "open palm vs closed fist" or something like that. Following the way of the Closed Fist often made you a grade A prick, but you were never being evil for evil's sake. The philosophy was all about valuing strength above all other values--let the weak fend for themselves, not out of cruelty, but because the struggle will make them stronger. If you take away their incentive to struggle, you promote weakness. Etc.
While the Bioshock series has thus far had a pretty rudimentary moral choice system--not quite evil for evil's sake, but evil for power's sake, its exploration of the pitfalls of strict individualism or collectivism are way more mature than most of what the gaming medium has had to offer.
Any of you guys play Jade Empire? That was one of my all-time favorites in terms of role-playing/dialog/branching stories, and one of the few games where I could actually stomach playing through the story as the "evil" character. Instead of calling the moral system in the game "good vs evil", it was about two competing philosophies, "open palm vs closed fist" or something like that. Following the way of the Closed Fist often made you a grade A prick, but you were never being evil for evil's sake. The philosophy was all about valuing strength above all other values--let the weak fend for themselves, not out of cruelty, but because the struggle will make them stronger. If you take away their incentive to struggle, you promote weakness. Etc.
While the Bioshock series has thus far had a pretty rudimentary moral choice system--not quite evil for evil's sake, but evil for power's sake, its exploration of the pitfalls of strict individualism or collectivism are way more mature than most of what the gaming medium has had to offer.
Just how fat is this person that his bulk is capable of halting a speeding locomotive?tkioz said:
And are we getting into a eugenics discussion here? Weed out the fatties?
Actually, I think I'd prefer to see faction approvals, like Daggerfall (Elder Scrolls II) had. E.g., doing action X makes the merchants and guards happy, but pisses off the thieves and nobles, while doing action Y makes the guards and nobles happy, but pisses off the church and merchants, and action Z makes the thieves happy, but pisses everyone else off.
Dragon Age almost pulls this off on a personal level, but assigning numbers to it and letting you bribe past it with gifts makes it more like a dating sim than a real choice system. Like the last Extra Credits video put it, it's a calculation, not a choice.
Speaking of Extra Credits, I think they mentioned the faction approval system on their old YouTube video on Moral Choices.
Dragon Age almost pulls this off on a personal level, but assigning numbers to it and letting you bribe past it with gifts makes it more like a dating sim than a real choice system. Like the last Extra Credits video put it, it's a calculation, not a choice.
Speaking of Extra Credits, I think they mentioned the faction approval system on their old YouTube video on Moral Choices.
I confess with some shame that I found myself thinking along the same lines.FarmerMonkey said:
And who are the five other people? Are these the same five old people in Yahtzee's example? And what is wrong with them that they keep putting themselves in situations like this?
Yes! I loved that level, and I too let them live. I wish they had done more with including splicers who, if not actively friendly, were at least not actively hostile to the player. It seemed like a bit of a stretch that for every single person in Rapture to go all homicidal, and I always imagined that there may have been still functional communities barricaded into other parts of the city.JaymesFogarty said:
I also thought that the confrontation with Stanley Poole in Bioshock 2 was very well done, in terms of moral ambiguity.
Well, Disney aren't Obsidian, Bioware, or Black Isle. They make stuff for kids. Even if that stuff might be absolutely terrible.
I was actually just about to mention this. I played through the game twice (I really liked it and could handle the bugs). The first time, I tried the be nice to everyone approach. The story was really full, plot twists and little things along the way. However on my second play through, I was ruthless. If I had an option to kill or piss anyone off I did. The story was so limited. Basically first impressions were everything because no one gave me other details. I wish I had played it the other way around, because it would have been nice to go from a small storyline to a much larger expanded one.high_castle said:
The game was far from perfect, but your choices did matter for the story (mostly with flat out killing people).
BTW, for an interesting take on the whole ethical dilemma thing, there's a cute bit in Jasper Fforde's First Among Sequels [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Among_Sequels] -- fifth in his Thursday Next [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday_Next] series -- in which Thursday finds herself on a ship where a curious number of things are going terribly wrong. (You may enjoy it more if you read the previous four books first).
Furthermore, if this elephantine gentleman has enough mass to stop the speeding locomotive, how in bloody hell am I going to push him onto the tracks to save the five people of ambiguous size, age, and race? I exercise regularly, but I'm not taking HGH or anything. Do I use a bulldozer? Or are the train tracks perhaps on a steep hill, and I just need to nudge Fattie over the crest?ewhac said:
Yahtzee, good sir, you're probably the most intelligent person ever to be connected to gaming. This article was a new triumph for you, these are all brilliant points which I find myself almost in total agreement with. Happy new year and keep your brutal standards running throughout 2011.
Does anyone remember the choices in Tales of Symphonia? They had no impact on the story, but were there and had a real impact on the subtler ways characters felt about you, which I thought was interesting. The options tended to be divided by cynicism and idealism, which was respresented with the more mature and younger characters. What's more, on your first playthrough, you won't notice all the effects it does have (usually about what characters are willing to accompany Lloyd, which ones don't seem to care and which ones would really rather not). Added a lot of replay value when you first find out about it!
As for Epic Mickey, here's an idea: the good paint would turn the monsters into allies that would follow you, help you find shortcuts and fight other enemies - but there's a chance that they will switch back and turn on you at any moment. The thinner would destroy them outright but would mean you will be alone throughout your journey.
Personally, I think developers need to turn away from labelling choices "good" and "evil" and instead make the character's choice be lawful or chaotic. Define the character as good or evil from the start, and tailor the choices to that. I think this would allow more room for various choices as well.
As for Epic Mickey, here's an idea: the good paint would turn the monsters into allies that would follow you, help you find shortcuts and fight other enemies - but there's a chance that they will switch back and turn on you at any moment. The thinner would destroy them outright but would mean you will be alone throughout your journey.
Personally, I think developers need to turn away from labelling choices "good" and "evil" and instead make the character's choice be lawful or chaotic. Define the character as good or evil from the start, and tailor the choices to that. I think this would allow more room for various choices as well.
I think the problem is less with the choices and more with the rewards. The "good" choices should never have overt rewards. The reward for being good should be the world gets overall better through your actions but it can be as subtle as npc reactions.
One of the few good things about Fallout NV was the one time I sided with the powder gangers and killed all the townspeople. I came back later and one of the settlers said "hell of a way to thank doc for fixing you up." That contempt was more stinging than any stat or inventory loss.
I could have just killed the guy without consequences but that would have cemented my character's personality as an insecure bully and as a player that made me pause and think about what the townspeople's deaths meant in-game.
Mass effect was a good example of better choice options than "lawful chump" and "chaotic psycho". I want the ability to play a person who acts duplicitous and everyone loves because he never leaves witnesses? Or how about playing a good person who circumstances make everyone hate?
One of the few good things about Fallout NV was the one time I sided with the powder gangers and killed all the townspeople. I came back later and one of the settlers said "hell of a way to thank doc for fixing you up." That contempt was more stinging than any stat or inventory loss.
I could have just killed the guy without consequences but that would have cemented my character's personality as an insecure bully and as a player that made me pause and think about what the townspeople's deaths meant in-game.
Mass effect was a good example of better choice options than "lawful chump" and "chaotic psycho". I want the ability to play a person who acts duplicitous and everyone loves because he never leaves witnesses? Or how about playing a good person who circumstances make everyone hate?
A good way to make the straightforward evil/good choice more meaningful is attaching an in-game faction modifier to it. Making evil choices makes certain factions like you and good choices others. Then have each of the factions provide DIFFERENT benefits. This creates dilemmas such as 'I want to do the right thing here, but if I save this supply ship Faction B will stop selling me ammo for my Ubergun, and they're the only suppliers!' For bonus points the game includes a riskier option of saving the crew on board without saving the ship. Such as docking your own ship to it and having to evacuate the crew before time runs out.
The central choice in Fallout 3's Pitt expansion knocked me for a loop:
SPOILERS
I was all about toppling the slaver regime and stealing the cure to the plague. THEN I discover that this means stealing a baby from her loving parents who plan to eventually cure everyone and handing her over to a grad-A a-hole who may or may not have society's best intentions at heart. I was stuck with either maintaining a horrible status quo or destroying it, orphaning a child, and possibly not making anything all that better.
I literally spent a couple *days* pondering what to do before I decided that my anti-slaver policy meant I *had* to bring down the regime, no matter how disgusted I was with the idea of orphaning a child and handing her over to a scumbag. Once I'd done it, though, I immediately left the Pitt and never wanted to see it again.
SPOILERS
I was all about toppling the slaver regime and stealing the cure to the plague. THEN I discover that this means stealing a baby from her loving parents who plan to eventually cure everyone and handing her over to a grad-A a-hole who may or may not have society's best intentions at heart. I was stuck with either maintaining a horrible status quo or destroying it, orphaning a child, and possibly not making anything all that better.
I literally spent a couple *days* pondering what to do before I decided that my anti-slaver policy meant I *had* to bring down the regime, no matter how disgusted I was with the idea of orphaning a child and handing her over to a scumbag. Once I'd done it, though, I immediately left the Pitt and never wanted to see it again.