Morality Matters, Part 2

[ChupathingyX]

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.

There's no clear "good guys". Given that the Legion goes on a rampant murder-frenzy the INSTANT that Caesar isn't there to restrain them, they're evil fucks all the way.

Not necessarily, but I do see your point. Most likely once caesar dies for whatever reason most members of the Legion won't know what to do, some will go crazy, some might try to take over, some will leave and go back to living as tribals in Arizona.

Just remember that before Caesar came along Arizona was just a bunch of tribals all going to war constantly. But like I said I see your point. Although, the same can be said for independant New Vegas which would probably just cause pure chaos considering everyone can do whatever they want.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

James just won the internet.

Again.

 

[freaper]

For stress relief involving the slaughter of innocent (and badly rendered) civilians, try Prototype. Where whips cut through police officers like a knife through butter..

 

[Marcusss]

When talking about Chrono Trigger, I just remembered similar moment in Squenix game -> in "Xenogears". (don't read more if you want to play this game sometime)
When I was in capital of Aveh I decided to visit a circus currently in town. I had fun there - there was no other reason for this establishment to be there. I had fun... and right after I left I met a person I (hero - Fei) "knew" - some guy from my village who is working outside and looks forward to see his family. Family I know maybe doesn't exist anymore- his wife can be dead and his child as well. And it is partially my (Fei's) fault! And you can't just tell him. And I just had fun. Did I deserve to have fun? I thought I did not.

Well, it's not exactly a morality choice, but it's interesting moment of moral situation (if not a dilemma)... Don't you think?

 

[Aurgelmir]

I like morality systems which aren't based around filling up a good/evil bar to gain advantages in a game. ME2 would lock out content if your Paragon or Renegade wasn't high enough, and it would SHOW you that you didn't have these skills by graying out the options.

This left me with a feeling that I as a player had "played the game wrong", not that "I made a wrong decision".
Also when they give me three choices A Good, a neutral and an evil PLUS a Blue or Red option, I will ALWAYS make the colored option because the game teaches me that those choices are "better choices".

Personally I liked the conversation system in Dragon Age 2. I get three distinct options (or more) they are all clearly labeled what they mean, but none are any "better" than the other.
The game lets me choose how my character would react to the situation, and not dictating my responses based on if I want Paragon or Renegade skill.

I got some of my Characters killed in DA2, and I really got a bit sad when that happened, because it happened based on what my choices were, not because my renegade skill was to low.

TL;DR:
Morality systems work best when they don't reward you for staying good or evil, but reward your choices in each situation.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Well this was... surprisingly boring. I kinda expected more judging from the concept.

Personally, I like faction systems over black-white morality systems, but only if those factions all have their legitimate points and are neither black nor white themselves - but that's usually too much effort for your average game (given that the system would fit in the game).

A basic example with two sides: How do we use the money, do we put it into efforts to help the sick and poor or do we put it into high-tech scientific research that lets us grasp the stars? You can have split opinions on that one. Some might say we shouldn't even start thinking about "luxury projects" like that when there's still so much suffering in the world to prevent, some might say we need to think beyond these things that keep pulling us down and follow our dreams of the future or else we'll get stuck with a Sisyphus task and ideas and visions unexplored. There could can also be "neutral" options for splitting the budget either equally or slightly in favor of a certain side of the argument, or for just stop listening to all that crap and use your money selfishly.

Now consider the amount of programming/writing you'd have to do for each choice and I think you'll know why we don't see such scenarios more often. And it was just an argument with two sides to whom you're neutral with, things get more complicated with more sides and if you're already affiliated to one since the decision you make also has an impact on your "career" or at least standing with certain people.

Personally I'm sorta split about what impact morality choices should have on the game, whether they should have no impact (whatever you do, the story still follows its linear plot, letting you explore all options safely), little impact (story is still linear, but some cutscenes are different and you might get a different ending) or big impact (you can kill off crucial characters and turn around the plot in multiple ways with the only common thing of each playthrough being the beginning, and even that only if you don't have a Dragon-Age-1-like character background customization).
Maybe there's a place for all three of them and we can all start puking rainbows.

TL;DR Morality systems should never have "wrong" options unless it's something easy to fix like the option leading to certain death and you'll be prompted to try something else, like in "adventure books" that tell you to visit a different page for each choice, or many Visual Novels from Japan.

 

[Bostur]

Morality is not a one-dimensional spectrum having only two extremes. In fact, creating a compelling moral choice system has nothing to do with extremes. That's not where the meaningful conflict takes place. The player should feel pulled in multiple directions, and the choice should sting a bit.

If the game is built on extremes, the only choice that matters is the first. That's when the player decides whether this will be a "good run," an "evil run," or maybe a "neutral run." Every choice after that is already made.

I think you are spot on there.

The few cases where morality grows outside the simple gameplay mechanic of 'balancing good/evil bars' is when it stings a bit.

I think this happens most often when actions and decisions have a downside as well as an advantage. Being goody is probably more fun if there is a bit more of a struggle involved. Being evil may be more fun if it unlocks some cool stuff, as well as some negative consequences.

 

[MisterM2402]

Anyone else think they should have just tagged this onto the end of the last Extra Consideration article?

 

[ranger19]

I'm happy to see people are still talking in this thread, because I've been catching up on old articles and was afraid nobody would be commenting any more.

I think a lot of the article is on - asking players silently whether they're making a "good run" or "evil run" is a bad thing, and one that maybe Mass Effect is a little bit to blame for. But I get really caught up in roleplaying these games, trying to figure out what I would do in each case, and try not to let gameplay implications impact my decisions. (I got into the habit of pushing the "paragon" conversation option sometimes before I could read all the other options, though, so maybe Mass Effect isn't perfect. Which just excites me because of how much I love the game now... imagine it being even better!)

Anyway, one morality moment I wanted to mention, and it comes down to who's viewing your actions. In the original Bioshock, I remember being told by two different characters different things regarding the little sister: one said "devour!" the other said "save!". At that moment, I decided to listen to the doctor and save that girl. Later, I met a second little sister, and the doctor wasn't around, but Atlas was still whispering in my ear to devour her. I didn't know at that point what the little sisters were and what was really good/bad, so this time, in secret, I devoured her.

Eventually you figure out that the little sisters really "should" be saved - they're not creepy monster things, they were actually human beings once (and maybe still are). As soon as I figured that out I saved them all from then on. Of course, I got the bad ending because I devoured one or two. I always thought that was annoying, because I was penalized for something I didn't fully understand, and I wished the game had realized that I started doing the good thing as soon as I figured out what it was.

 

[LordFisheh]

Any game that does draw attention to morality -- Infamous, for example, did it with particular obnoxiousness -- will just make the player consciously decide if they're doing a 'good run' or an 'evil run', and so they'll just make every choice without thinking. Which is wise, because the gameplay of Infamous (as well as games with morality gameplay like Mass Effect and Dante's Inferno) reserves its best rewards for players who are all the way good or all the way evil. And by default, that's all the average player cares about: what will benefit gameplay.

I don't like the idea of having to perfectly balance all possible player choices. Am I the only one who, say, when playing mass effect actually roleplays the game rather than just going 'standard issue renegade playthrough' and 'standard issue paragon'? Having to maintain such a perfect balance for players who like to play at maximum efficiency (personally I don't see the attraction) is pretty difficult as it is and will serve only to hold back what games can do in terms of a player driven story. Ruining morality mechanics and the consequences of player choice like this is like changing a film so it works even if people aren't paying attention to it.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't want games to start designing themselves for a min-maxing, follow-the-guide-to-get-the-'best'-ending approach. If a player wants to play that way, they'll do it however much it simplifies the plot.

 

[auronvi]

And James schooled them both with but a single thought...

On the thoughts of morality it games, reading

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8436-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment-Part-II

has a great view of the different ranges handled in Dungeons & Dragons as far as alignment goes.

Lawful Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Good
Neutral Neutral
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil

Imagine a game with this many different possibilities as far as behavior goes. It isn't perfect but if you had two axis instead of just one, you could create a very convincing morality system that makes character customization and game-play much more interesting.

I always think it is a bad idea to attach game-play bonuses to morality. The fact that you have to be either extremely good or extremely evil to be the most powerful is absurd. You should be able to learn either move but one may effect your meters more than others.

You learn a Lightning Spell that tends to be more of a chaotic spell. If you use it, you have the chance to hit something that might not necessarily be your target. When this happens, your character grows more chaotic and maybe the spell will jump to more targets as you grow more chaotic.

Lets continue this a little more. Now if you are evil or neutral, you might just leave the bystanders laying there. If you are good, you might try to heal the wounded. So maybe the more good you are, the Lightning spell will then better avoid innocents because you are a good person, albeit a bit of a loose cannon. This can be shown with maybe the lightning changing to a golden color as oppose to maybe a darker blue.

^^This is just with one spell and would not be to tough to implement in a game. Adding that second dimension to morality, especially in games like Fallout or Fable where you get to control how the character acts, makes game-play way more interesting.

TLDR: You suck.

 

[TheScottishFella]

I am loving this guys.

 

[Lord_Kristof]

Is it me or does Yahtzee always seem to dominate these conversations?

Yes, he does it, because apparently Mikey has not much of value to say, and tends to be very strict about his control of the discussion (like here, when he said "Yeah, I think this topic is wrapped up" before James actually got to throw in his bit) - this was well heard in the podcast thing. I just don't think he's a very good person to have in these sort of endeavours - sorry. I hope I'll see some more of these with a Mikey who actually lets people speak their minds.

And we definitely need more James, I don't always agree with him, but I love how he thinks and presents his points.

 

[Bek359]

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.

There's no clear "good guys". Given that the Legion goes on a rampant murder-frenzy the INSTANT that Caesar isn't there to restrain them, they're evil fucks all the way.

Not necessarily, but I do see your point. Most likely once caesar dies for whatever reason most members of the Legion won't know what to do, some will go crazy, some might try to take over, some will leave and go back to living as tribals in Arizona.

Just remember that before Caesar came along Arizona was just a bunch of tribals all going to war constantly. But like I said I see your point. Although, the same can be said for independant New Vegas which would probably just cause pure chaos considering everyone can do whatever they want.

Have you SEEN the endings for Legion victory, Caesar dead? Most everyong gets killed by the Legion. Vegas - most people slaughtered. Boomers - slain/enslaved to a man. Followers - exterminated. Goodsprings - mostly ignored, but that's only because it's small. The Kings - dead. Novac - suffers heavy losses. Primm - will most likely get wiped out. NOBODY AT ALL gets a good ending with the Legion, unless their endings are totally independent of which faction wins. They are evil, period.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Problem with morality is that it doesn't really exist in nature so to speak. Humans decide what is moral and what isn't. Anything you do in a game will be amoral, because after all it is a game, an imaginary world. When you start adding it into a game for a better role playing experience, you better make sure you create a completely realistic system and let the player know that the game will (try to) react the same way people do in the real world. Otherwise you are creating something similar to morality, but not true mortality as we all know it.

Rewarding players for bad actions and even sometimes for good actions will not accurately depict what happens in the real world and that is when the morality system breaks down. Why developers try simulate real life rather than just creating a great game is beyond me.

Wiki quote and generally accepted definition of a 'game':
"A game is structured playing, usually undertaken for ENJOYMENT..."

This is probably why they reward you for being so evil, but that is not real morality, is it?

For future reference:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/

I think an objective morality system of good and evil is far too binary and usually ends up being so unrealistic that many people view it as another gameplay element to master, just as Yahtzee argues in the article.

However, I do think that you could use something like a morality system to develop character's personalities in RPGs. By performing hateful or loving actions, your character can gradually change his or her demeanor, appearance and tone accordingly, making them feel more like complex characters. The more of these qualities you have, the deeper characters can seem. Binary good and evil options force all actions into just two categories, which will inevitably make characters two dimensional because they are defined as taking a certain spot on a scale. The more qualities one measures characters by, the more (literal, if we continue the spatial metaphor) dimensions that character will have. It is possible that a character is both loving but also has flaws like lustfulness and greediness but you can't express that kind of complexity on a binary scale.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I wish they had brought up neutrality in games with a morality bar. Some games like Knights of the Old Republic 2 were telling you quite explicitly that both extremes were horrible and lead to the cesspit of a situation the galaxy was in, yet you were punished quite strictly for not choosing a side. That seems to be the major design flaw in those games, there is never real middle ground.

 

[ranger19]

Just want to say that this thing has been awesome. Seeing the escapist's best come together for these discussions is like seeing your favorite super heroes come together for a giant crossover issue/series for the first time!

 

[Flig]

While it certainly has it's flaws, I find Alpha Protocol's morality system to be the best concept I've seen so far. Rather than that binary "good or evil" universal morality bar, your actions affect each character individually. Instead of the theft of character A's flower pot making character's B through Z think you're a complete jerk (whether or not they liked character A), interactions with different characters will either raise or lower your standing with them, and possibly a few other characters related to them. I find an ideal system would be having decisions of monumental weight affect more characters(in ways according to their side/faction/personnal morals/sexual preference/hair color/what-have-you), while smaller choices only affect those involved with the results and events of the choice.

 

[aldowyn]

Morality systems in RPGs need a serious revamp, IMO. Well, the black-white ME/KotOR works for some games, but when you want to get into something deeper and more honestly role-playing (As in an actual character, not Paragon/Renegade / Light/Dark, you need something a bit more complex. Being punished for not going completely to one side of a two-sided morality system really hurts true role-playing.