Morality Matters, Part 2
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
Until they somehow get Jim Sterling from the "Jimquisition" involved, yes, Yahtzee does dominate these conversations quite well.WouldYouKindly said:
OT: The issue about morality in games is a very unique one, and a disappointing one, because I don't think I've played that far into any games that implement it.
Would it have made Heavy Rain better if a morality meter was involved somehow?
Abe's Oddysee did a great morality system, to save the muddokens that means you have to solve devastatingly hard puzzles, but you get the good (canon) ending. Ignore 60% of the game, you get the non canon but surprisingly more satisfying bad ending and then you play again *****.
Also, weirdly, Shadow the Hedgehog. It's not very good at measuring morality (the game itself is a sinful pleasure of mine, so bad yet so wonderfully hilarious) but the result of "moral" actions resulted in genuine variety in the game, entire level paths were determined by it. I'd like to see a game make use of it that wasn't utterly horrible.
Also, weirdly, Shadow the Hedgehog. It's not very good at measuring morality (the game itself is a sinful pleasure of mine, so bad yet so wonderfully hilarious) but the result of "moral" actions resulted in genuine variety in the game, entire level paths were determined by it. I'd like to see a game make use of it that wasn't utterly horrible.
I think the two keys to this topic that were mentioned are
1) Learned game behaviour. I think a lot of games need to think about how to break gamers out of their rut at the start and make it more cohesive with the game world. If Chrono Trigger had kept up it's little gag it would soon anti-train people and make them think about their actions a little more. The other particularly egregious example of trained behaviour is where (as Yahtzee pointed out) people explore everything. It makes the main character seem like he's got ADHD and it can ruin story flow and tension. Sometimes in some games you should be really wanting to push ahead and achieve your goal instead of deliberately trying to slow the game to earn max points/prizes.
2)That most games end up falling into a good run/evil run. Which isn't morality at all, just partitioned game content, like Yahtzee said again. Either it should be more interactive (like in Star Wars games the dark side should suck you in, the more dark sides things you do, the easier and more tempting it is to carry on, but it will lead you ultimately to ruin and consequence.) Or it should be about the choices and forcing players to try to define their own morality. You'd probably need to remove a lot of the gameplay elements to do that. But it works (see One Chance)
1) Learned game behaviour. I think a lot of games need to think about how to break gamers out of their rut at the start and make it more cohesive with the game world. If Chrono Trigger had kept up it's little gag it would soon anti-train people and make them think about their actions a little more. The other particularly egregious example of trained behaviour is where (as Yahtzee pointed out) people explore everything. It makes the main character seem like he's got ADHD and it can ruin story flow and tension. Sometimes in some games you should be really wanting to push ahead and achieve your goal instead of deliberately trying to slow the game to earn max points/prizes.
2)That most games end up falling into a good run/evil run. Which isn't morality at all, just partitioned game content, like Yahtzee said again. Either it should be more interactive (like in Star Wars games the dark side should suck you in, the more dark sides things you do, the easier and more tempting it is to carry on, but it will lead you ultimately to ruin and consequence.) Or it should be about the choices and forcing players to try to define their own morality. You'd probably need to remove a lot of the gameplay elements to do that. But it works (see One Chance)
It all makes sense, and James and Croshaws responses solidifies that Individualism IS the morality of a game, not good and evil. Good and Evil are too general to pin down while individualism gets a pair of pink fuzzy handcuffs to do the job right the first time. Probebly why I like AC more then Fable 
For moral-choice systems that alter the character, I remember reading in some book somewhere (hurray for vagueness) that whenever a game ties a player's "moral" choices to the character's attributes, the player basically stops thinking morally ("what would be the right thing to do in this situation") and starts thinking statistically ("what would get me this neat new power that I want"), kind of defeating the whole purpose of having a morality meter in the first place.
Also, someone earlier mentioned the MGS morality, and I'd just like to chime in and say that MGS3's "Surprise! We were keeping track of how much of a murderous bastard you were while you played. Enjoy the consequences." is one of my more memorable gaming experiences.
Also, someone earlier mentioned the MGS morality, and I'd just like to chime in and say that MGS3's "Surprise! We were keeping track of how much of a murderous bastard you were while you played. Enjoy the consequences." is one of my more memorable gaming experiences.
Assuming there is two sides to morality is basically taking the Fable/inFAMOUS route. Morality should be sculpted around the player, with each choice being free of a blatant good/bad label. I recall a part in The Witcher (which I didn't get too far into...) where there's some kind of cannibal in the woods who helps you out before you discover his true identity. From that point, you can choose to either punish him for his crimes against humanity or look the other way because of his helpful nature. Choices like that are much less black and white, and certainly cause to player to weigh their priorities and scrutinize the situation more closely.
Has anyone else notice that James seems to be pushed aside almost all the time in these and ignored or is it just me?
It's funny how James says the least in this article yet I agree with him the most.
Games should strive more to grey morality, not black and white. That's why I loved Fallout: New Vegas, because there were no clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys" when it came to the 4 main quest paths.
Games should strive more to grey morality, not black and white. That's why I loved Fallout: New Vegas, because there were no clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys" when it came to the 4 main quest paths.
I actually would like to disagree with James just for the sake of being pedantic.
There are two sides to morality. There just needs to be more stuff in between the two and neutrality needs to be effectual.
There are two sides to morality. There just needs to be more stuff in between the two and neutrality needs to be effectual.
"best rewards for players who are all the way good or all the way evil."
Good point, though an observation I've made about all these kind of games (Mass Effect being the first example to pop to mind) is that they are linear games, they have one ending with variations.
By giving you morality issues they are not changing the game for you, they are just giving you different ways of experiencing it, basically a pick your own Shepherd so the character type is reflective of the kind of character you want to 'see' in the game.
This isn't a bad thing, it isn't there to give you knots in the stomach about a bad decision you made, it is there so that the experience is catered towards the individual. Ultimately it helps you feel like you're playing a role or at least influencing the narrative, separate concept from plot, in a manner that suits your tastes.
Deus Ex the original commenting on whether or not you stunned the enemies or brutally butchered them was not made to change the outcome of the first mission or the story, just to immerse you in a way that you felt a part of the game, not just along for the ride.
Good point, though an observation I've made about all these kind of games (Mass Effect being the first example to pop to mind) is that they are linear games, they have one ending with variations.
By giving you morality issues they are not changing the game for you, they are just giving you different ways of experiencing it, basically a pick your own Shepherd so the character type is reflective of the kind of character you want to 'see' in the game.
This isn't a bad thing, it isn't there to give you knots in the stomach about a bad decision you made, it is there so that the experience is catered towards the individual. Ultimately it helps you feel like you're playing a role or at least influencing the narrative, separate concept from plot, in a manner that suits your tastes.
Deus Ex the original commenting on whether or not you stunned the enemies or brutally butchered them was not made to change the outcome of the first mission or the story, just to immerse you in a way that you felt a part of the game, not just along for the ride.
I agree that given the subject matter, it was a bit disappointing to see so little debate, even if the debateurs were essentially in agreement. If they did agree about what games did it well or not, why not branch the talking into a general appreciation of where morality systems can benefit a game (which was mentioned briefly, and then ignored). Come on guys, you can do better than that?
For my own personal point of view, I do enjoy the added ability to steer my experience that these morality systems give. I don't so much mind that some are basically dividing the game into 2 runs, if only there is a marked difference to how the plot unfolds based on this. What I don't like is when either choice arrives at the same outcome, only by different words. Yes, I may need the macguffin, but circumstances should change based on the path chosen beyond me getting macguffin. For an easy example, maybe the difference lies in whether the macguffin holder remains alive after I get the macguffin.
I also detest the Stupid Evil choices that plague most of the Dark Side/Renegade/Closed Fist paths. Brutish behavior without consideration for even your personal benefit annoys me to no end. Dragon Age:Origins had a particular retarded version of this, in the choice to save Redcliffe or not. I'm trying to get the lord of the area to help me, yet I will not help even his main city? Nevermind the fact that I gain nothing by not helping except perhaps alienate this supposedly righteous man? (and from a gamer perspective, actually hurt myself by skipping out on the xp and loot) Bah.
ME tried to get it right by making the Renegade path about ends justifying means, and they have done better than most, yet they still slip into Stupid Evil territory sometimes. Can I have a cunning and intelligent "evil run", please? Maybe pepper the "good run" with a few "What the Hell, Hero?!" moments, to show that sometimes you shouldn't be a saint willing to see the best in everyone? Also, it wouldn't hurt to provide some benefits along the way to ultimate good or ultimate evil, to at least make the choice less clearcut. A simple neutral ending to the game that isn't an afterthought with no real closure of plot would be a start. Heck, let the neutral option be a path in its own right, not inferior to the other two or the opt-out option.
One of the better morality systems I've seen was in Fallout 2, where there is immense satisfaction in seeing the consequences of your actions, of which not all can be the rosy good kind at once, after the fact. If only they would have let me save The Hub and let it remain a festering sinkhole...
For my own personal point of view, I do enjoy the added ability to steer my experience that these morality systems give. I don't so much mind that some are basically dividing the game into 2 runs, if only there is a marked difference to how the plot unfolds based on this. What I don't like is when either choice arrives at the same outcome, only by different words. Yes, I may need the macguffin, but circumstances should change based on the path chosen beyond me getting macguffin. For an easy example, maybe the difference lies in whether the macguffin holder remains alive after I get the macguffin.
I also detest the Stupid Evil choices that plague most of the Dark Side/Renegade/Closed Fist paths. Brutish behavior without consideration for even your personal benefit annoys me to no end. Dragon Age:Origins had a particular retarded version of this, in the choice to save Redcliffe or not. I'm trying to get the lord of the area to help me, yet I will not help even his main city? Nevermind the fact that I gain nothing by not helping except perhaps alienate this supposedly righteous man? (and from a gamer perspective, actually hurt myself by skipping out on the xp and loot) Bah.
ME tried to get it right by making the Renegade path about ends justifying means, and they have done better than most, yet they still slip into Stupid Evil territory sometimes. Can I have a cunning and intelligent "evil run", please? Maybe pepper the "good run" with a few "What the Hell, Hero?!" moments, to show that sometimes you shouldn't be a saint willing to see the best in everyone? Also, it wouldn't hurt to provide some benefits along the way to ultimate good or ultimate evil, to at least make the choice less clearcut. A simple neutral ending to the game that isn't an afterthought with no real closure of plot would be a start. Heck, let the neutral option be a path in its own right, not inferior to the other two or the opt-out option.
One of the better morality systems I've seen was in Fallout 2, where there is immense satisfaction in seeing the consequences of your actions, of which not all can be the rosy good kind at once, after the fact. If only they would have let me save The Hub and let it remain a festering sinkhole...
I always thought morality was justification for throwing acid into a woman's face, or not reporting child molesters because it would embarrass your church. In the end morality is a lie. The founders of the US stated "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right..." yet nearly all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence made a living by exploiting slave labor and did not view woman as equals and denied them most rights beyond being the property of their fathers' or husbands'. I prefer asking the question "Is it fair?" as opposed to it being "Is it moral?" because fair can be quantitatively measured. A boxer fighting an opponent twice his size is inherently unfair but morally speaking "Little Mac" fighting Mike Tyson is not viewed as wrong because it was a game of skill.
Why not just merge this with the podcast?
ANYWAY a good morality system should never assume the players motivations for their choice, only demonstrate their repercussions.
That is to say, there are no good morality systems.
[INSERT REFERENCE TO DEUS EX HERE]
ANYWAY a good morality system should never assume the players motivations for their choice, only demonstrate their repercussions.
That is to say, there are no good morality systems.
[INSERT REFERENCE TO DEUS EX HERE]
Random thought: I was really annoyed by the original Black and White. Really interesting game, in some ways- an innovative use of AI, and some attempts to do something novel with the interface (even if not all of those ways entirely worked, especially in the heat of battle.) But morality-wise, I found myself wanting to appeal to some none-existant judge (doubly ironic, given that the game has you playing as a freaking god.) Giving food to an extortionist monster- food that could be going to your innocent, non-aggressive villagers- is the "good" option? Healing my creature over and over again when a bad guy is throwing those inherently naughty fireballs at him is the "good" option?
Good should not equal "pushover/martyr". There's putting others before yourself, and then there's just getting steamrollered by anyone who pushes.
Good should not equal "pushover/martyr". There's putting others before yourself, and then there's just getting steamrollered by anyone who pushes.
theres nothing I dislike more than divine/collective morality applied to every NPC except me. That breaks all believability and I'd rather not find out if it's worth playing both sides.
Also points to ME for having morality affect character internally. If I had a say in this there would be different versions one for paragon and other renegade each with their own attitude rather than one schisophrenic clayman.
If we leave the consistency on the player completely, bothering with some numerical limitations to roleplay is just awful.
Also points to ME for having morality affect character internally. If I had a say in this there would be different versions one for paragon and other renegade each with their own attitude rather than one schisophrenic clayman.
If we leave the consistency on the player completely, bothering with some numerical limitations to roleplay is just awful.
In the new Assassins Creed, I wanted to try to playthrough the game killing as little people as possible. Sneak through any possible fight and if I have to, use my fists to knock the guards out. This did not turn well and within the first five minutes of my Arkham Asylum operation I ended up having to murder twenty people so they would let me into a door. The problem about AC is that I sometimes don't feel like an assassin and more like a genocidal maniac. I don't feel like I'm commiting to the rebuilding of Rome when I'm murdering all of it's citizens. Point is I like having more stealth options plz.
