Morality in Gaming

[dabronc7]

This is not a question of what side of the morality spectrum you play as...it is more of a question whether morality can actually work in video games.

It seems as if whenever I play a game with morality (ie Fable, Mass Effect, KOTOR) the questions are extremely simplistic, this action gives you +10 good points, the other gives you +10 bad points. In my view, there haven't been any games that grasp the concept of morality, where one action can have more than one consequence.

How do you see it?

 

[TheBluesader]

This is not a question of what side of the morality spectrum you play as...it is more of a question whether morality can actually work in video games.

It seems as if whenever I play a game with morality (ie Fable, Mass Effect, KOTOR) the questions are extremely simplistic, this action gives you +10 good points, the other gives you +10 bad points. In my view, there haven't been any games that grasp the concept of morality, where one action can have more than one consequence.

How do you see it?

I agree that morality in games uses D&D style points systems, and that this isn't realistic or all that intriguing from the standpoint of a good story.

At the same time, games are 100% mathematical formulas running on computers, and I appreciate it as a true modern miracle of technology that we can get any sense of reality or depth from these great piles of math at all.

Now, that said, of course writing could be more realistically complex, and the game could be made to simulate this. But that means someone has to plot all these divergent threads out and account for every possible variation. Which would be awesome. But also insanely complex, and therefore time consuming, and therefore prohibitively expensive.

So while I agree with you completely, I also think we should be happy with what we have, and not expect much more. Unless we're willing to pay for it.

 

[The Hairminator]

Have you plated KOTOR 2? Every action seems to have multiple meanings and consequences. That said it's not an extremely good game.

You are right, however. The morality system in most RPGs utterly fail to drag me in. Mass Effect would be an exception, since it doesn't let you choose between good and evil, just more or less ruthless ways to reach your, in the end, good goals.

 

[Spadge]

Morality is such a complex thing, governed not only actions but the reasoning behind them. I remember playing KotOR and mistakenly racking up Light Side Points as a Dark Jedi Consular, because I wanted to get someone onside. I wanted the get them onside so I could use them, and then move on - a far greater betrayel.

But, imagine how difficult that would be to implement. Much easier to make it black and white.

 

[Ghost1800]

Wouldn't it be better to take the dragon age approach? There is no singular morality, but only the perception of it through your allies and team members. Your actions don't impact your character directly in any obvious +10 good/evil points sort of ways, it just changes the way your character is perceived by others. I think that at least is a step up from the morality system of a game like Fable.

 

[Miumaru]

I think Fable has some of it in the right direction. Not the actual morality of you, but the fact that everyone else views you different. Really, if one village saw you murder, and another village saw you kill a evil monster, views would conflict. Grey area is fun, and I do hope games with morality get it to be more and more in depth.

 

[Jajarra]

Personally, I think the problem lies in the fact that the game is letting you know you're being evaluated. I recently played an indie game called Iji [http://www.remar.se/daniel/iji.php] which I think handled morality in an interesting fashion. Essentially your morality wasn't a simple good/evil spectrum, but rather a pacifistic/violent one tied to your kill count. The way it changes the story is very subtle, usually just changes to dialog and the ability to skip a boss, and it never actually tells you it's evaluating your play.

There's also an old SNES game called Ogre Battle, an RTS...type...thing, in which every units morality is affected by it's own personal alignment and how the surrounding townsfolk view it. Every single battle you fight and town you capture or liberate affects that units morality, which leads to situations like your super powerful unit defeating every enemy unit and being looked at as a bully by the townsfolk.

 

[octafish]

Tenpenny Tower anyone?

 

[SpecklePattern]

How do you see it?

That is really just hard to make. Game makers are trying to make games that really move forward accordingly your decisions, but rarely succeed in that. There would be rapidly increasing number gameplay strings of the causes and the effects. If they would make it realistic every decision would need to be tracked through the entire game and every new decision would have different options accordingly to the previous ones AND the game should change accordingly. Soon that databank will explode into the hands of the developers and they just publish the game that has like +10 to dexterity and -5 to carisma options that doesn't have any effects on the game... Sad. So I think we are far from the point that we will see excellent morality or other gameplay character personality effects on games.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Personally I found that Heavy Rain dealt with it pretty nicely. There are plenty of moral choices in that game, but the game never tells you what is the "right" or the "good" decision. You make it and you have to deal with the consequences (if there are any). I really hope more games catch onto that way of making ethical choices in games, because it promotes far more thought and discussion if you ask the question "Is it right to shoot a drug dealer who has a family in order to save your own child?" instead of "Game X gives me Evil points for shooting the drug dealer to save your child."

 

[Kollega]

I've thought about one way this could be improved - not a "good vs. evil", but "being kind vs. following orders". You could raise both meters independently with small actions, but when your superiors order you to commit a war crime and you either accept or decline, one meter raises while other diminishes.

 

[SonicWaffle]

So while I agree with you completely, I also think we should be happy with what we have, and not expect much more. Unless we're willing to pay for it.

I'm fine with what I have personally, and I almost always play a good guy. What does annoy me, though, is when a game offers the pretense of morality. I've been playing Red Dead Redemption and I'm bothered by the way the game allows me to make "evil" choices - let the guy in the random saloon events kill the hooker, let a cannibal eat an injured dude, kill someone for a land deed rather than buying it etc - but they don't seem to have any overall effect. In the cutscenes John Marston is still polite, friendly, and a man of the people.

I have found myself really liking the character, as he fits the mould for the guy I'm playing as, but I can see it being annoying if I were playing as a badass. Sure, you lose some honour, but it doesn't appear to have any effect on the storyline however much of a dick you are.

 

[TheBluesader]

So while I agree with you completely, I also think we should be happy with what we have, and not expect much more. Unless we're willing to pay for it.

I'm fine with what I have personally, and I almost always play a good guy. What does annoy me, though, is when a game offers the pretense of morality. I've been playing Red Dead Redemption and I'm bothered by the way the game allows me to make "evil" choices - let the guy in the random saloon events kill the hooker, let a cannibal eat an injured dude, kill someone for a land deed rather than buying it etc - but they don't seem to have any overall effect. In the cutscenes John Marston is still polite, friendly, and a man of the people.

I have found myself really liking the character, as he fits the mould for the guy I'm playing as, but I can see it being annoying if I were playing as a badass. Sure, you lose some honour, but it doesn't appear to have any effect on the storyline however much of a dick you are.

As someone is is currently on his second playthrough of Red Dead, let me tell you that the story is written in such a way as to work whether you've been a saint or a piece of crap. I'm not going to ruin the ending for you, so you'll just have to watch and see if you think it works out as well as I do.

That said, RDR clearly wants you to play as a good guy. 2/3rds of the story make more sense with your character if you do, and you actually get penalized if you play as an outlaw (lost shops, no financial bonuses for being saintly). But that's okay with me.

Especially after Niko Bellic from GTAIV. For a guy who ran down pedestrians while fleeing from the cops who are chasing him only because he shot a stranger in the knee, he's awfully judgmental in the cut-scenes.

Another reason I love the Saint's Row games. They knew moral choice was a pain to set up and that gamers just love killing at random, so they said screw it and made a game that rewards you for being absolutely terrible in every possible way. Almost a refreshing approach at this point in gaming history.

 

[SonicWaffle]

As someone is is currently on his second playthrough of Red Dead, let me tell you that the story is written in such a way as to work whether you've been a saint or a piece of crap. I'm not going to ruin the ending for you, so you'll just have to watch and see if you think it works out as well as I do.

Really? Hmm. I admit, I've not done very many missions - I'm only about 12 hours in, and a lot of that was concerned with waging a one-man war on the animal kingdom - but from the cutscenes I've watched and the hideouts I've cleared, Marston just doesn't seem to be the badass type. He gets all uppity about the conman selling snake oil, for example, when not five minutes earlier a drunk challenged me to a duel and I shot him in the face. Then another dude caught me cheating at poker, so I shot him in the face too. Behaviour in the game doesn't seem to have any relation to behaviour in the cutscenes.

Especially after Niko Bellic from GTAIV. For a guy who ran down pedestrians while fleeing from the cops who are chasing him only because he shot a stranger in the knee, he's awfully judgmental in the cut-scenes.

I hated Nike Bellic, but I never really noticed him being judgemental. I disliked him because he was so damn emo he was practically cutting himself and listening to My Chemical Romance. You come to a new, exciting land. You get to drive fast cars, wear expensive suits, sleep with hot women and make tons of cash. You are pretty much living the dream, and what do you do? Bang on endlessly about how shit life is, how much you hate everything, and wangst about your tortured soul. Just...shut up, for fucks sake.

Another reason I love the Saint's Row games. They knew moral choice was a pain to set up and that gamers just love killing at random, so they said screw it and made a game that rewards you for being absolutely terrible in every possible way. Almost a refreshing approach at this point in gaming history.

I loved Saints Row too, but not for the killing aspects. I grew out of going on murderous rampages just for the hell of it around about the time I was playing San Andreas. What I loved about it was that it was fun, because I picked it up right after GTA IV, which was fun in gameplay terms but I really didn't like the "darkier and edgier" storylines and characters. I missed the silly jokes, toilet humour, wacky characters etc from earlier GTA games, and that was exactly what Saints Row delivered.

 

[Vault Citizen]

Tenpenny Tower anyone?

I hated that questline.

Spoiler

First time I tried to get a peaceful solution but I just ended up getting the human's killed. So the next time I did that part of the game I just killed the ghouls who wanted in, killing the female ghoul felt wrong because she wasn't armed, she seemed nice and she wasn't going to kill anyone she just wanted a home. But I figured it was better to kill three ghouls than for a whole building of people to die

 

[Dexiro]

I played GTA: SA last night and decided that i wish morality systems would be scrapped completely. They drain the fun out of a game!!!

It was refreshing being able to play an open world game and do what you want without consequences. Kill as many people as you please and the game doesn't hate you for it, it just orders a police chase and then forgets about the whole thing.

You're not constantly worrying "oh no i'll try to drive carefully so i can be a good guy", you just have fun doing whatever you feel like ;D

 

[Georgie_Leech]

Baldur's Gate had a good system, in my opinion. It didn't have good vs evil choices, just choices. Some tended to causing more harm, or causing society to view you more negatively. Others do the opposite. It's not always obvious which way is the "good" way; sometimes it's choosing between evils.

Ironic, considering that the game has you choose an allignment in character generation.

 

[Naheal]

I prefer a "faction based alignment system". I.E. Save the haunted forest, the Elves like you more, but the templars like you less. Burn it down, the elves like you less, but the templars like you more.

 

[Estocavio]

Fallout 3 + Choices that make bigger changes and an excuse for why you get to make them all (Make the player President Eden perhaps...)

 

[Nouw]

I don't play many RPGs so I don't know. I can say this: Batman, no one gets left behind