Epic Mickey Offers No Choice

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I agree about moral choices in games lacking substance and ambiguity, and forcing players into arbitrary dichotomies.

Ironically enough one of the best games I've played for moral ambiguity was KotOR2 (despite its faults and the fact it was made by Obsidian). One of the game's central themes was consequence versus intent, and inside a universe with a pre-established, long-standing, traditional good/evil dichotomy it was absolutely amazing. It's too bad you were ultimately penalized in that game (by being denied mastery bonuses) for taking to heart the moral that good or evil for their own sake can be equally destructive or selfish.

Personally, my biggest wish for games is that moral choices would stop being dichotomous, whether it's good versus evil, short- versus long-term gain, or ends versus means as most important. True, dichotomy works as a storytelling mechanism, but on the other hand dichotomy will always be to some extent unambiguous and limited in scope, and it strikes me the best way to add depth, intent, and consequence to moral decisions is to increase the number of potential choices or investigate player/character intent when faced with a moral dilemma.

A great example of this are the climaxes of Mass Effect 1 and 2. The final moral dilemmas are effectively dichotomous choices, but during the epilogue Shepard explains their intent and that, and whether they are a paragon or renegade, changes the ending (and the sequels) accordingly.

 

[ensouls]

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).

I love Jasper Fforde.
Had to get that out of my system.

Epic Mickey is a really bad example (you don't expect moral complexity from Scooby-Doo either; let's not confuse the little hatchlings or they may turn out to be nihilists and then where would we be), but the general idea is true. Even the games targeted at older audiences tend to be halo vs. horns. It's predictable. There are only so many ways around that without getting into horrifically complex event/dialogue coding, but SOMETHING different would be nice. Are there any games where, say, where you fall 'karmically' at the time you die makes you reincarnate as different things? I'm honestly asking here, it may have been done.

 

[Mr.Lucifer]

He missed the point of the moral choice system in epic mickey. It was not supposed to between good and evil, but between acting like mickey's original 1930's system or the way he is depicted today. The creator wanted players to be able experience mickey as the rogue he once was. Mickey wasn't always a boring everyman, he actually used to be a fun badass.

 

[Batadon]

Honestly, I think Chrono Trigger's courtroom scene was a really good way to do moral choice. You were being judged by your actions the whole time and you didn't know it.

The only real problem with it is that there wasn't any real difference in what happened. Why can't other games do something like this and make it matter?

 

[Mike Fang]

I think one game that might have adapted the moral choice feature well was The Suffering. For those who never played it, you played a death-row convict who had to escape an island prison off the New England coast that had become possessed by the insane spirits of people who had died in particularly unpleasant ways throughout the island's long, bloody history.

Now throughout this game you've got a bit of a angel-and-devil-on-your-shoulders thing going on. Your character, named Torque, was convicted of murdering his wife and children, but he claims he can't remember doing it. Throughout the game Torque is both whispered to by the voice of his dead wife and tempted by the voice of his inner demon. Dilemmas come up in the game that give you the opportunity to be either a decent, unfairly convicted man, an indifferent one just trying to survive, or a homicidal sociopath.

Now admittedly some of the choices are slightly abstract, but here's the thing: you don't -have- to make either a saintly choice or a sadistic one. You can chose to care only about saving yourself, not going out of the way to help or harm, which leads to its own ending (one of three, naturally). This seems to give a bit more freedom of choice.

What precisely constitutes a good or evil choice is also mixed up a bit. I'm particularly reminded of once scene where Torque comes across a guard who is horribly mutilated; his arms and legs cut off, writhing in pain. Without prompting from either of the two spirits trying to influence my decisions, I wound up shooting the guard (I forget if I did it deliberately or if it was an accident). But here's the thing: after doing so, I was given a message that told me that I'd done a good deed. While some will definitely argue, the game gave you credit for intending to end the guard's pain when it was apparent he wasn't going to survive and was in needless agony.

 

[Dragonpit]

I think the reason why they didn't explore is because it would be either over the heads of the attended audience (families, which include kids) or just a topic with which they would be stepping on too many toes, if you know what I mean. Frankly speaking, I believe it's the former, but the option is there.

Spoiler

And far as the Geth choice thing from Mass Effect 2 goes, it is indeed a very grey area. You could say that it's wrong to impose upon someone's free will, but Legion goes as far as to say that, not exactly in these words, his species is of a different type of existence and the rules that apply to most species don't necessarily apply to the Geth. This opens up an odd choice with an over-arcing question: which is right? Sad to say the game still applies a Paragon/Renegade point bonus to this, probably because you're actually there to earn the loyalty of Legion, but it waters down the significance a little. In truth, there is no 'right choice.' It all depends on you.

 

[Mr.Lucifer]

It was never intended to be between a choice of good and evil. It was supposed to between mickey as his current and his 1930''s characterization. Do the research people.

 

[Hobonicus]

My father honestly thinks The Legion is the best option in New Vegas.
He is republican.

I... see...
Having played through New Vegas now twice I really don't get the benfits of the Legion. I initially played through the game as I would be myself; helpful, intelligent and kind but in the face of atrocities like the legions crimes in Nipton, vengeful but righteous. I ended up helping everyone and befriending the Kings, the NCR and all until I came across the Brotherhood of Steel who said I should destroy the Van Graffs. I had initially tried to become one of them due to my energy weapon preference in game but as they were clearly evil I had little conscience when it came to exterminating them (so I killed that one group, oh, and all the fiends too). I had Mr House unplugged because I thought I could do better for the surrounding area of Vegas than he had done and the NCR was just too much of a delayed beurocracy to do anything useful. At the end I wanted the NCR to stick around but it gave no option for me so I had to kick them out.

What's the point of this? I played the first time as I believed was right. But this meant I had little run in with the Legion at all apart from beating them at Nipton, seeing Caesar and at the end. So I did an evil run through.

Now this is where it becomes relevant to the discussion; I could see no viable reason to support the Legion. Yes they imposed law but it was an unbalanced, unrealistic expectation of society where following orders was rewarded above personal achievment. Where science was effectively banned. Where all women are subjugated and many more are enslaved. Not to mention Caesar being a TOTAL douche, I mean I wiped out the entire fucking Brotherhood of steel using only a big bit of metal and my fists and is he even grateful?! NO! There is no redeeming set of ideals for the Legion, I had to entirely force myself to be evil. The Legion kind of evil is just retarded and the sort nobody could agree with, especially as there seem to be no benefits whatsoever. No sidekicks that I found, only 3 arena matches to challenge myself with and thankless tasks from people I could easily kill with my 100 unarmed or melee skill and 9 strength. I wanted to stay in character and kill the general at the end but I just couldn't do it, my willpower was worn out, so I just talked him out of it... like a pussy... *sigh*...

Oh, btw, ^^^^ a few spoilers.

This just shows how well done New Vegas' moral choices were. The reasons you cited were mostly personal, which is exactly what The Legion ISN'T. The Legion is the only faction that can assure humanity's survival; they're the big picture people who will let a few suffer so that the majority can live. Just the fact that you didn't even consider this (nothing wrong with that) because of your more intimate personality shows how well New Vegas was written.

I chose the same path as you (except I eventually sided with the NCR) but I can see how someone would join The Legion in order to ensure that humanity survives the wasteland. They aren't evil for evil's sake, they're just the more coldly logical answer to Fallout's population issue.

 

[Sindre1]

My father honestly thinks The Legion is the best option in New Vegas.
He is republican.

Wat? Really? REALLY? there just evil for evils sake... NCR or House seems for more logical. I would say Wild card but that is basically the Mr. House ending.

To be fair; he don't know about Wild Card or Mr. House.
Think he is going to want to take over for himself.
And they are not really evil. It is just a political thing. Extreme right wing.

 

[Daveman]

snip my EPIC post

This just shows how well done New Vegas' moral choices were. The reasons you cited were mostly personal, which is exactly what The Legion ISN'T. The Legion is the only faction that can assure humanity's survival; they're the big picture people who will let a few suffer so that the majority can live. Just the fact that you didn't even consider this (nothing wrong with that) because of your more intimate personality shows how well New Vegas was written.

I chose the same path as you (except I eventually sided with the NCR) but I can see how someone would join The Legion in order to ensure that humanity survives the wasteland. They aren't evil for evil's sake, they're just the more coldly logical answer to Fallout's population issue.

Well, firstly I'll tell you why that didn't really come across to me. Humanity is just as guarunteed to survive in some form whatever happens regardless of the system of government in place, so long as there isn't another faction which plans to nuke everything (... I mean again). I don't see my voting (IRL) as making a difference, even in the slightest bit, to whether or not extinction is more or less possible. I see it as how we're going to survive rather than whether we'll survive. And how is ignoring all the scientific progress made in terms of medicine etc beneficial? Not only is it a huge step back but literally nobody else has done it, no civilisation has ever taken such a dramatic leap in the wrong direction. I'm a big picture guy and I didn't see that side of the Legion as "the only certain survival option", which I'd admit would be appealing, because I don't see it as a valid argument.

Also there's still no in-game advantage of siding with Caesar that I can see.

I don't expect you to necessarily agree or whatever, it's just how I see it.

 

[Candescence]

Multiple people have pointed out that calling Epic Mickey's "moral choice" system as "good or evil" is just completely missing the point, because it's not about good or evil in the first place.

And finally, why the hell, after all this time, have anyone NOT mentioned Shin Megami Tensei? The hilarious irony is that it's a JRPG that did mons years before Pokemon, and yet, I think, it's got the best choice system besides Mass Effect, because it's not about good or evil. Hell, there's three main options - "Law", "Neutrality", or "Chaos". All three options are generally depicted as morally ambiguous, Law and Chaos can be either a good thing, or evil, if taken to the extremes.

Law - Also known as 'Order', is associated with civilization, authority, rules, protection, the status quo, tradition, and, when stretched to its most evil extreme, mindless obedience, fascism and xenophobia. When they have powers associated with them, it's often leadership, The Virus, Brainwashing, and the power to bind with rules and oaths.

This side is always associated with God and his subjects. Except, generally, in Shin Megami Tensei (until recently), God is a total jackass, and egotistical one at that. He is the final boss in Shin Megami Tensei II, no matter what side you pick, even the guys on the side of Law know he's gone overboard. However, He's acting the way He does because something is very wrong with the universe, and it's causing Him to act differently beyond His will.

Chaos - associated with change, Tricksters, free will, creativity, individualism, and, to its evil extreme, madness, savagery, solipsism, and selfish overindulgence.

This side is associated with Lucifer and his minions. Though, problem with this, however, it's LUCIFER. On the other hand, it's hard to tell whether Lucifer is actively malicious or if he really does think what he does is for the greater good, because God is an egotistical jackass most of the time.

Neutrality - the idea of a balance between the two. Neutral endings tend to be canon in SMT.

Asides from the ending and what kind of bosses you fight closer to the end, the various sides do have a consequence - certain demons are more likely or less likely to join your party, depending on the alignment you have currently. It's one of the more unique 'moral choice' systems in gaming, if not the first.

And, if that's not enough, SMT3: Nocturne offers several choices, based on certain characters' ideas on how to make the world a much better place, and all of them have their ups and downs, and at the end of the game, a new Earth is created based on that ideal or "Reason". The 'Neutral' choice is to decide to just restore the world back to the way it once was. The "True Demon Ending" is basically siding with Lucifer, deciding to end the cycle of rebirth and genocide of billions of people and go after God himself, and even then, you don't know if you're just a pawn of Lucifer or not.

 

[drivel]

I was actually surprised while playing through Alpha Protocol how well the decision making system works in that game. It derives a little bit from Mass Effect's conversation system, but instead of having clearly defined, simplistic blue = paragon / red = renegade setup, the decisions are all shades of gray. It is also very difficult to tell what the effects on the story line will be down the road.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I think one game that might have adapted the moral choice feature well was The Suffering.

Every time Yahtzee brings up this topic I wonder how come he never mentions The Suffering.

I always say no other game ever used the whole choice gimmick in a more interesting way: For one thing, your choices have an immediate gameplay effect (people you help often teach you alternate ways to navigate maps); choices not only alter the ending but also a lot of small details throughout the story; and even though there is a "angelic/demonic" thing to it, in the end it's not as black and white as it would've seemed: The ultimate consequences to your actions are not so much "good/neutral/bad", but more like "bad/slightly worse/god-awfully terrible".

 

[Jeffro Tull]

I wish systems with clear-cut alignment choices did have inherent rewards for being evil/good, because I believe in Absolute Morality and Inner Moral Integrity. However, having the rewards be of the same nature is the wrong way to go about it.

Good choices should be hard, and come at identifiable cost to the player. However, Virtue is its own reward, and possibly converts to Morale Bonuses to the character over time, with quadratic power growth. In the end, someone who is Good should end up ultimately stronger than someone who is evil, but it would be much harder to get there. And the person who was completely uncorruptable is stronger than someone who tries gaining short-term benefits by flip-flopping between them. The natural reward is bonus Experience in RPGs, for solving the greater challenge. In the end, you end up Superman.

The Evil paths should give significant, large bonuses, tempting the player with quick, often easy rewards, most transient or temporary like wealth or positions of power or fair-weather allies.

Either way, Good and Evil should average the same power level over the span of the entire game.

Another problem with games is they are trying to use the Jesus/Satan morality tie, which works for open-ended games where Good and Evil are absolute, tangible causes (like Dungeons and Dragons, Fable, and Black&White). In those games, it's good to reward "Good" and "Evil" equally well, because you're devoting an equal ammount of effort to both. In those games, "neutral" people get brushed aside for being wishy-washy and spurned by both Greater Powers. The KOTOR Games explicitly justify this, since the two views of Using the Force are so incompatible trying to be neutral just leaves you weak. (Some people are "Balanced" in the Force, but the game doesn't permit you to follow the same path because doing so would likely be game-breaking, in addition to defiling pre-New Republic Jedi Order canon. The Dark Side is "Chaotic Stupid" pre-Luke, and the "Light Side" is "Lawful Stupid". Jolee and Skywalker are "Neutral Good")

However, developers keep trying to shoehorn this model into a game that wants a Superman/Punisher morality system (Epic Mickey, Dragon Age, Mass Effect), where the goal is to be Good, but you're constantly faced with issues where it's easier to take a quick-and-dirty route to bypass a problem.

On another note:
Also, Fable considers killing characters like Twinblade and the Defeated Mercenary as an evil act because killing someone who has surrendered or is helpless is an evil act. The problem is it doesn't give a genuinely good "Trust, but Verify" response that would lead the mercenary on a path of redemption.

And as far as moral dillemas go... I hate arbitrarily binary choices. There should always be a third, infalliably good choice that you have to run yourself ragged or be Superhumanly powered to achieve. It may even be programmed to be supposedly impossible (Trying to do too many things "simultaneously"), but it shouldn't be a "Press 'X' for Choice A, Press 'B' for choice B." I hated the fact that in Fallout 3, I couldn't have my Level 20, Speech 100, INT and CHA 10 character (In full power armor, and wielding a Gatling Laser), to persuade/intimidate Ashur into changing the way the pit was run. Similar issue I had in Dragon Age, I didn't like how the game prevented me from using my incredible force to prevent Baelin from having Harrogath executed, and cleaning up Dwarven Politics by cleaning out the corruption with my fireballz.

Binary choices really piss me off as well. For me it breaks any sort of immersion I had experienced when I come to the realization that I only have two choices in a situation. Come to think of it, it doesn't bother me when there is a sort of split-second moral dilemma that I am faced with. However if I am faced with a scenario that requires planning I will try my hardest to break that dividing line if I don't like either choice, or potential outcome.

I believe that Fallout 3 and recently New Vegas handle the morality issue well. Sometimes you find yourself making an important moral decision without even realizing it until the scenario has played itself out. Still other times the moral question is bluntly presented but your faced with the environmental factors that can obscure your own moral fiber. The question which is presented is this; how bad does your current situation have to be before survival is more important than doing what you know is the right/ honorable thing to do? I love those games simply because of that reason.

 

[ishist]

I agreed right up until the Coke vs Pepsi question to which your answer was unequivocally wrong.

 

[Kebabco]

Would you rescue one baby or five old people?

I read an interesting story about that once actually, you are standing near a switch, there is a train coming in, on one set of rails is fat man, on the other there are 5 people, if you pull the switch the fat man dies, if you don't the 5 people die.

edit: 5am posting isn't good for clarity.

Most people say they would pull the switch, 5 for 1 and all that jazz.

Now same situation, only there is no switch, and the only way to stop the train from hitting the 5 people is to throw the fat man in front of it (just roll with it).

Would you still do it? Most people say no, but morally it's the exact same choice, trading one life for five, you're hands are just a little dirtier.

The 2nd course of action would be punished harder in a court of justice. That's why people dont do it.

 

[tkioz]

Would you rescue one baby or five old people?

I read an interesting story about that once actually, you are standing near a switch, there is a train coming in, on one set of rails is fat man, on the other there are 5 people, if you pull the switch the fat man dies, if you don't the 5 people die.

edit: 5am posting isn't good for clarity.

Most people say they would pull the switch, 5 for 1 and all that jazz.

Now same situation, only there is no switch, and the only way to stop the train from hitting the 5 people is to throw the fat man in front of it (just roll with it).

Would you still do it? Most people say no, but morally it's the exact same choice, trading one life for five, you're hands are just a little dirtier.

The 2nd course of action would be punished harder in a court of justice. That's why people dont do it.

Legality and Morality are often contradictory, it was illegal (well at least punishable) to hide Jews from the Nazi's but was it immoral? Sure it's a swing in the opposite direction, but works both ways.

 

[Mr. Socky]

Whoa. Yahtzee basically gave Mass Effect a compliment. I'm just waiting for him to comment somewhere else about how bad it sucks to even the scale out.

 

[macfluffers]

This is why I'm a fan of Ace Combat Zero's morality system. There are two choices: be a dick and kill neutralized targets that don't pose a threat anymore (since they've already been shot down or whatever), and be a nice guy and stick to the mission. Since you're a mercenary, the first option gets you more money, so you can buy nicer planes. However, in response to your ruthlessness, you have to fight against more difficult ace squadrons (the bosses of the game). The second is the opposite, naturally.

The best part that it isn't really good/evil, it's weighing two separate values against each other and deciding which is more important. Do I want awesome planes that will demolish normal enemies, or should I stick with mediocre planes and have easier boss fights? Should I act like an enthusiastic mercenary or a reluctant soldier?