Personally I think games with a morals system are great fun...as long as you see the results of your actions and decisions. *Looks at dragon age* I'm not terribly fond of the meter showing which side of the scale I'm leaning towards though. It is kind of cool but I don't need a meter to look over my shoulder telling me not to kill the nice farmer or everyone will hate me. I'm going to do what I want. Hence the choice system. Let me accept the consequences chose.
Epic Mickey Offers No Choice
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
The Witcher had the best morality system I've come across in a game because the decisions you made were never directly connected to your quest but rather a means of deciding how future events would pan out.
The way it's done usually is: Kill A, get evil points, evil powers become better or more evil choices become available; Spare A, get good points, and so on.
The way The Witcher tried to do it (didn't always come across clearly); Kill A, nothing happens, later in the game you get info from an NPC and have to fight a group of enemies to finish a quest; Spare A, nothing happens, later in the game A has killed the NPC making your quest last longer but when the final fight comes A will turn up to offer you a quicker, less violent solution.
I think that as morality is unique to the individual, the only way to implement it effectively in a game is to make the decisions as invisible as possible as well as making the game judge you on the way you play.
The way it's done usually is: Kill A, get evil points, evil powers become better or more evil choices become available; Spare A, get good points, and so on.
The way The Witcher tried to do it (didn't always come across clearly); Kill A, nothing happens, later in the game you get info from an NPC and have to fight a group of enemies to finish a quest; Spare A, nothing happens, later in the game A has killed the NPC making your quest last longer but when the final fight comes A will turn up to offer you a quicker, less violent solution.
I think that as morality is unique to the individual, the only way to implement it effectively in a game is to make the decisions as invisible as possible as well as making the game judge you on the way you play.
More philosophical wish-wash. The only difference between contemplating all those moral dilemmas and crying into your cappuccino is that eventually you'll realize that crying into your cappuccino just isn't cutting it anymore so off you go, stumbling back to your old life or whats left of it anyway as to filling your head with everunanswered questions would be the equivalent of planning to travel around the world in 80 days and on the 1896th hour you'd still find yourself in bed with both your hands down your pants.
Decently written and formulated though, kudos.
Decently written and formulated though, kudos.
A good article.
I've yet to find a game I feel did moral choice systems right. As Yahtzee said, being good seems to bring no rewards. Being evil brings greater reward, but oh no, you may have harmed the collection of pixels and programming.
Now, KOTOR was weird. It sort of came close a lot, but never was a good moral choice system. There's one point on Tatooine where some woman ran up to me and asked me to buy a hunting trophy, which I could sell later. There was neutral, buy it for the same value. Good, wave the fee. And evil, which was overcharge. I never see this woman again. It doesn't matter what I do. Of course I got the extra money.
The only people I was kind to were most of my companions, because Bioware did do a good job characterising them. So I liked them... Well, ok I didn't like Carth... Can you blame me?
But I was disappointed in one respect. In the Star Wars lore, the Sith ideals are emotions make you stronger, and not every decision should be totally logical. It's not just being evil. KOTOR touched on this, but basically if you were evil, you were a Sith.
Ah well. KOTOR's still fun, just a lot of wasted potential with the moral choice system.
I've yet to find a game I feel did moral choice systems right. As Yahtzee said, being good seems to bring no rewards. Being evil brings greater reward, but oh no, you may have harmed the collection of pixels and programming.
Now, KOTOR was weird. It sort of came close a lot, but never was a good moral choice system. There's one point on Tatooine where some woman ran up to me and asked me to buy a hunting trophy, which I could sell later. There was neutral, buy it for the same value. Good, wave the fee. And evil, which was overcharge. I never see this woman again. It doesn't matter what I do. Of course I got the extra money.
The only people I was kind to were most of my companions, because Bioware did do a good job characterising them. So I liked them... Well, ok I didn't like Carth... Can you blame me?
But I was disappointed in one respect. In the Star Wars lore, the Sith ideals are emotions make you stronger, and not every decision should be totally logical. It's not just being evil. KOTOR touched on this, but basically if you were evil, you were a Sith.
Did anyone else find it interesting that the jedi pretty much killed Revan? It's the whole morality thing, is it worse to kill someone, or totally change there personality? I thought that was a cool twist, though not explored enough.
In theory, that's a perfect substitute, but if he's strapped with explosives and willingly blows himself up to stop the train, then that's no moral choice of yours, it's simply him being a hero in a strange way.moretimethansense said:It does a bit but wouldn't it make more sense for the one man to be rigged with explosives by whoever set up this bizarre morality play?SlainPwner666 said:
That way the mans life is equal to the life of one of the others and personal bias doesn't come in to it.
And before you say "but that would kill the passengers!" at no point were passengers (or even a driver) mentioned, for this bizarre test someone would have had to set this up in advance, otherwise what's stopping the driver from putting on the brakes?
For this to work the only factors should be 1 life vs 5, and obviously, if you do nothing five will die, if you kill this one the same five will live.
In the infinitely unlikely situation this happened during the train's normal running schedule I'd let the five die, no sense in making all those people late!
However, if you pushed him in front of the train, then it really defines your moral fiber, because the question is basically meant to ask, "Would you murder one man to save five?"
Maybe, a man is strapped with explosives, and YOU have the detonator? I dunno.
I really think it matters more "who" the people are, unless I'm missing something (sorry I kinda skimmed up to this point).
Like if the one person was someone you loved and the 5 were strangers but kids, if they're all just strangers then it's just about math at that point.
On topic, Yeah I'm always really iffy when I hear about some kind of moral choices in games, as they usually boil down to pat puppy on head or drown it....
Like if the one person was someone you loved and the 5 were strangers but kids, if they're all just strangers then it's just about math at that point.
On topic, Yeah I'm always really iffy when I hear about some kind of moral choices in games, as they usually boil down to pat puppy on head or drown it....
The problem as i see it with moral choices in video games is that the creator seems to think that most people will be kept up at night if they make a bad choice vs. a good choice. I mean, come on, its a bloody video game; no one is going to lose sleep over the fact you made the existence of a pixel character bad. Mass Effect was sorta heading the right direction where choices you made could change the outcomes of different events in the future, but then again it all comes back to the fact that good choices seem to make it so trouble just "bounces" off of you while making bad choices makes all the interesting shit happen but then you're character is made out to look like a total asshole. If they want to impress me, they should make a video game where being good sometimes gives you worse consequences than if you were just an ass about the whole situation; but there i go day dreaming again. . . . .
I did like infamous but it's choices weren't actually good V evil they always in my mind came down to the needsof others V the needs of self.myah said:
There are loads of morally blank dilemmas that dual-choice games don't explore enough. Would you give up a miserable but familiar existence for an exciting but unknown one? Would you rescue one baby or five old people? Is Coke better than Pepsi? Well, yes, but they both make you fat.
Answering yahtzhee's q's above in order
1 give up familiar distance everytime I hate my life
2 baby babies are cute old people are annoying
3 both taste nasty but I do like diet coke
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,023
- 3,890
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
"Or in games like Metroid Prime 3 or Dark Earth where you can use the evil force possessing you to gain a temporary power boost but doing so makes it likelier that you'll succumb to it. But even these don't so much paint you as a "bad" person, just a weak one more mindful of short-term benefit than long-term effects."
that brings me of mind of something in breath of fire 4, in the game you got access to dragon powers, and they were a big "fuck you" to any enemy in the game, I couldnt find a single one who could stand to the powers but if you used them too much then you became corrupted and the game ended so it was best not to use your "fuck you" powers unless you really needed them
that brings me of mind of something in breath of fire 4, in the game you got access to dragon powers, and they were a big "fuck you" to any enemy in the game, I couldnt find a single one who could stand to the powers but if you used them too much then you became corrupted and the game ended so it was best not to use your "fuck you" powers unless you really needed them
I'll take the Dick approach, or more properly the "Richard" approachOcelano said:
1: I would do everything to ensure my existence stays exciting
2: I would eat the baby and watch the old people burn (actually if this were real life; neither; I hate babies, and old people- well I've seen too many mooch off certian systems that're put into place, so begone with them too!)
3: is syrupy caffeine better then syrupy caffeine with santa? no; if you need me I'll be drinking a Roy Rodgers Root Beer... or a V8 *cough* (but most likely milk)
Yep. The problem is 'dual'. When you have only two choices the reflex to do what you understand to be the 'good' choice in order to get the 'good/successful' ending is strong. To reduce this moral weight, there should be multiple choices. Maybe like a quiz, each choice is worth different points to identify which ending you get. But in the meantime, you can make compromises between what you want and what needs to be done. If you want to play for fun but not be typecast as evil, you can do so.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
The closest I've seen are the King-choices in Fable 3, but even they were flawed by virtue of being clearly defined as good/neutral/evil. Some ambiguity would have been awesome.
I liked the witcher. It did moral choices right in two ways:
1: There was no good or evil.
2: It isn't clear what the result and effects will be in the long term. Stuff may happen hours later into the game as a result of a choice you made, and you didn't see it coming.
As for the train analogy:
Let's replace the train idea with another idea: Let's say five people are dying in a hospital because they need a new organ. There is a man in the waiting room who would be the perfect donor for all of these people. Can we drag him out of that room and take out his organs because it would save five lives? Most people will answer no.
1: There was no good or evil.
2: It isn't clear what the result and effects will be in the long term. Stuff may happen hours later into the game as a result of a choice you made, and you didn't see it coming.
As for the train analogy:
Let's replace the train idea with another idea: Let's say five people are dying in a hospital because they need a new organ. There is a man in the waiting room who would be the perfect donor for all of these people. Can we drag him out of that room and take out his organs because it would save five lives? Most people will answer no.
This reminds me of the Legion loyalty mission from Mass Effect 2. I really liked the Geth,so I had to choose between brainwashing them thus ridding them of their free will but allowing them to thrive in greater numbers or wiping them out, removing the threat and leaving the non-aggressive Geth alive, leaving their 'species' closer to annihilation but dealing with the problem cleanly.
Developers do not investigate the concept of moral choice for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it would be bad press if a game gave the option for someone to be realistically moral or immoral, since typically people have a paranoia of the Pavlovian Conditioning Theory. If I give you a treat for being evil, you will think there is a greatness in being evil, and why shouldn't you manifest this into your own life. This line of thought is weak though, as a majority of gamers are sound enough, or at least I hope so, to make a distinction between life and virtual life. Nonetheless, developers would like to hear the name of their game in the same sentence as someone such as Ted Bundy, because money and image are more important than quality and experience. Furthermore, there are some games that simply do not consider the idea of morality and moral conciousness in characters, except for in isolated areas, such as in the Fallout series. Lets take one of the Bethesda Softworks ones: New Vegas. In New Vegas, you can strain yourself to be nice to people, skimp out of material gain, and pop a cap between their eyes, and you will be akin to Jesus. However, you may slice the head off of a little girl's puppy and wear it as a cod-piece, and you will still be loved. Trust me, murder, regardless of who or what you commit it to, is damaging to the human psyche. Furthermore, there is a certain lack of reality in consequence in games, as if good actions exist purely without negative associations. Right, if that were the case, Herzel's Israel would be much less entertaining for the media, and Bethlehem wouldn't be surrounded by and internment camp wall. So, to avoid the depressing drabness of reality, because it would cut profits, developers decide to jump over the side of the bridge and take a nice fall into the Pisswater River. However, they will insist on adding routine work, literally work, for players if they begin demanding more reality in their games. In all honesty, nobody wants to come back from brown-nosing thier boss, to begin brown-nosing a virtual-reality twat who doesn't even pay you for your services.
Furthermore, philosophers have not yet achieved grounds of what good and evil are, though they have theaories. I think if you ever play a first-person shooter that grants a tiny window of choice, you will most likely be exposed to Nitschian philosophy, that or if you're a Nazi.
P.S. Coke is awesome X-D
P.S. Coke is awesome X-D
'But remember the true meaning of Christmas, kids: just because your parents only bought you one of the consoles doesn't mean you have to loudly and obnoxiously defend it in every internet argument for the rest of the year.'
Amen.
Amen.
An excellent article.
Zero punctuation may be kind of hit and miss lately, but this is very much on the ball.
Zero punctuation may be kind of hit and miss lately, but this is very much on the ball.