Please stop complaining about morale choices...

[Kagim]

I'd like to start by excluding the topic comment to all people who straight just prefer Linear storylines. If you honestly just rather having a straight story line then a choice one then I have no beef with you.

No the people I am talking about are the people using the "I hate how rigid the system is" followed up with the oh so stupid "Its just to force you to play it twice"

Why this is maddening is simply because you can't fix the former without making the latter worse.

The game becomes less rigid, now instead of two different endings you now have three, or four, or nine. The more rigid the game the less endings you can earn. That's how the system works.

The choices are also rigid for a damn reason. The more grey area you place into the game the less likely the way you feel about a choice will reflect how the developer feels about the choice. Lets make an example.

Your buddy Jimmy has committed manslaughter scared he comes to you for help. You can either convince him to turn himself in or help him get away. Which is the good choice?

My personal opinion would be to convince him to turn himself in. Show repentance and likely since it was manslaughter a light sentence will be placed on him as well the risk of suspicion of it being homicide will likely go away. When he gets out he won't have to live with the fear of always looking over his shoulder because the suspicion of manslaughter has been bumped up to first degree murder.

But what if you don't feel that way? What if you disagree with me? Well I'm the developer so it doesn't matter if you think getting your friend the hell out of town is the good choice i disagree. I think its the wrong choice, so now your being punished because we don't think the same.

I'm not saying choices like that shouldn't exist or that i am against them. Merely that these people crying for less rigidness will be facing things like that and will very well end up complaining about it as well. So developers usually won't bother. Proof of this? The sheriff quests in Fallout 2. In one town originally helping the sheriff plunged the town into a police state while helping the crooks would make the town prosper. This was scrapped because they felt the average player would get upset because it wasn't what they expected so they opted for a Shreiff=good Crooks=bad so as not to confuse players.

Rarely is saving orphans seen as evil and rarely is stepping on kittens seen as good. I'm sure someone out there thinks stepping on kittens is good (there is a fetish based around it afterall....) but its hard for the average person to earnestly defend killing baby animals without realizing they sound like an idiot.

What irks me the most is when people say "Forces you to play it again". Forces you? Really? Except for MMO's i don't see why they would give a shit if you play it for more then an hour after you put your money on the counter if no other reason then the developers wanting you to enjoy it. Just to be sure i checked all my my PS3 games. Funny thing, none of them have "Apx. Hours of game time." I special checked both my Bioshocks, infamous and Fallout 3 since they use morale system and yet not a mention of total game hours. I don't hear them in the ads on tv either. Your not FORCED to play anything again. If you want to earn the endings then playing the game again shouldn't be an issue. If you feel you deserve both endings its called youtube.

Thank you for reading my little rant. Once again those of you who just prefer Linear stories this has nothing to do with you. To each there own. To those who hate morale systems PLEASE come up with more logical flaws then "Morale choices shouldn't be rigid and should have no effect on the game so i don't "have" to play it twice" Seriously. Stop. If not for me then the children.

 

[Bonkekook]

People who complain about moral choice system are usually trying to make money off of being negative or went into a game that advertised a moral choice system, then found there wasn't much "choice" in the moral choice system. If you've played a variety of games with so-called moral choice systems, you know that some games advertise them and then don't even make your choice have an effect on the game long-term.

I thought BioShock 2's system worked fairly well as a moral choice system. The problem is that they want complete realism from it, and that just isn't going to happen.

 

[DividedUnity]

-snip-

I agree with most of your points about how choices have to be rigid to keep you out of the grey area. One problem i have is that if a game gives you choices it should not limit choices in certain areas.

This is an example and its not a silly arguement also Heavy Rain spoilers

Spoiler

Theres a part where the Origami killer must take care of a baby. Fair enough at this point you do not know he is the killer but on my second playthough i really want to feel like the decisions I make change everything. Wheres the option to drop the baby? Wheres the option to let the suicidal woman die and simply leave? Nowhere. The game forces you along a linear path at certain points then you get to choose at others even though the path is much the same.

If a developer is going to tell me I get to choose what happens in a game then my first question to him/her is this. Do I get to choose to be a heartless baby murderer? Do I get to choose to be a lazy asshole and not go looking for my son? Do i get to flykick a 5 year old in the face instead of buying sweets for my son? No I dont. The first arguement out of anyones mouths when they here this is story progression. Which I find funny because im pretty sure the story would progress just fine if I murdered babys. Id eventually get caught by the police. Admittedly this is not as thrilling as the well thought out ending the game had planned but its my choice.

Before I get too off topic ill discuss one of your examples. Fallout 3's good and bad system. My problem with this is that there are no truly bad decisions you get to make. Youll always find yourself along the same route you wouldve went with the good decision except with different dialog and a different faction that suddenly hates you. A truly bad decision would be the choice to rewire a mister gutsy robot so that it kills all the children in little lamplight. Fair enough you can simply shoot at them with a gun but the game prevents you from killing certain people. I know deep down that this is to keep the story going. But i cant help but be a little pissed that I get to be completely good and a saint where-as I cant just kill everyone for the sake of it including my own father. Yeah the storyline wouldnt be great but again its my choice.

I loved heavy rain and Fallout 3 all the same. I find the morale systems give me an incentive to playthrough twice because im curious. I just find the "you get to choose what happens" such a tease when its really so limited youre just choosing path A or B (over exaggeration i know)

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I hate it when they are just showhorned in.

Dante's Inferno. WHAT'S THE POINT?!

Infamous. Totally unnecessary.

The Force Unleashed. REALLY? Only one ending can be canon, you know!

Overlord. The point of the damn game is that you are EVIL.

 

[Cabisco]

My problem with morale choices is that some games tend to do them quite annoyingly. You may want to be good, but it's just so boring and rubbish that you want to just cut up all the annoying townsfolk. I think i'm talking about fable here. If a game gives your a moral choice system where each option will still be fun i'm completely ok with that, it's just that it either tends to be "fun" or "listening to people moan".

 

[Noobstick]

I'm not against the concept of moral choices per se, but the vast majority of games I've seen so far handle it in such a ridiculously black and white (ie, "save the little orphans or burn their dog in front of them") way that I don't feel they accomplish what they were designed for.

To me, a moral choice is meant to challenge me, the player, and force me to engage with the ficitonal world I'm playing with. I can approach the choice presented to me as the me-person would in real life, or I can try and get into the head of the me-character and make this choice consistent with the way I figure he feels about the issue. Both ways of doing this will have me reflecting on this world I am playing in, immersing me into the story.
The problem comes from the fact that every single game, bar one (guess whi-THE WITCHER), I've seen try to attempt this fucks this up royally. Their choices are at best laughably simplistic, at worst a mere cover for a simple evil/good slider the game sometimes isn't even ashamed of SHOWING YOU. This isn't immersive. This is figuring out early in the game which way on the slider I want to go, identifying the corresponding response everytime the "MORAL CHOICE HERE" prompt pops up and then sitting back and watching how the goody-two-shoes / saturday cartoon villain goes about things while you wait for the game to hand you the controls again.

Adding insult to injury is the way most games's choices only result in different ending cutscenes, loot or stats (see Bioshock). Why am I supposed to care for these choices if the game world doesn't? Just look at The Witcher (or Deus Ex, which went the extra mile by making many of the choices "invisible" and not shoving the "IT IS CHOICE TIME MISTER PLAYER" prompt in your face), and you'll see it really doesn't take much. A different quest line here, an NPC getting killed off too early / too late, even a few lines of dialogue here and there do wonders to make you feel like you have the power to change this game world around you.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, moral choices are a great tool when done properly. The beef I and most people have with them is not that they exist but that they are done so poorly as to detract from the experience.

 

[mrfusspot]

Your buddy Jimmy has committed manslaughter scared he comes to you for help. You can either convince him to turn himself in or help him get away. Which is the good choice?

Bad example.

Here's a more suitable one: an old lady needs help across the road. You can either carry her across on a wave of sunshine and butterflies, crying because you received a compliment afterwards, or you can SHOOT DA *****.

See my point?

Yeah, this is exactly the problem with most moral choice systems these days. You can go on one extreme, or go to the other extreme. Shit rainbows, or shit acid on orphan babies.

 

[QueenWren]

The ideal moral choice system is one where they never tell you that your making the choices. You meet a character who asks you to go hunting with him, you could say wait and investigate but maybe you don't and after you've agreed you find out he's a raving loony hunting people. Rather than: "Hi, I'm Mr. Raving-Loony would you like to hunt people with me today?" (select a yes or no answer to define your morality)

 

[Bonkekook]

I'm not against the concept of moral choices per se, but the vast majority of games I've seen so far handle it in such a ridiculously black and white (ie, "save the little orphans or burn their dog in front of them") way that I don't feel they accomplish what they were designed for.

To me, a moral choice is meant to challenge me, the player, and force me to engage with the ficitonal world I'm playing with. I can approach the choice presented to me as the me-person would in real life, or I can try and get into the head of the me-character and make this choice consistent with the way I figure he feels about the issue. Both ways of doing this will have me reflecting on this world I am playing in, immersing me into the story.
The problem comes from the fact that every single game, bar one (guess whi-THE WITCHER), I've seen try to attempt this fucks this up royally. Their choices are at best laughably simplistic, at worst a mere cover for a simple evil/good slider the game sometimes isn't even ashamed of SHOWING YOU. This isn't immersive. This is figuring out early in the game which way on the slider I want to go, identifying the corresponding response everytime the "MORAL CHOICE HERE" prompt pops up and then sitting back and watching how the goody-two-shoes / saturday cartoon villain goes about things while you wait for the game to hand you the controls again.

Adding insult to injury is the way most games's choices only result in different ending cutscenes, loot or stats (see Bioshock). Why am I supposed to care for these choices if the game world doesn't? Just look at The Witcher (or Deus Ex, which went the extra mile by making many of the choices "invisible" and not shoving the "IT IS CHOICE TIME MISTER PLAYER" prompt in your face), and you'll see it really doesn't take much. A different quest line here, an NPC getting killed off too early / too late, even a few lines of dialogue here and there do wonders to make you feel like you have the power to change this game world around you.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, moral choices are a great tool when done properly. The beef I and most people have with them is not that they exist but that they are done so poorly as to detract from the experience.

I think that kind of idea is an opinion though. The people who can afford to play every game out there don't want to play a certain game 7 times just to experience everything in the game(i.e. me). I liked BioShock 2's MCS because I felt creeped out by the bad ending and it bothered me when I had to choose about the Little Sisters. Fallout 3 is the only game who's system caused me to playthrough 3 times as each system. But I don't want to playthrough 7 times so 5 or 6 conversations along the way may be a little different.

"Crap, I killed so-and-so. Now I have to play again just so I can get his quest."

 

[Kagim]

Your buddy Jimmy has committed manslaughter scared he comes to you for help. You can either convince him to turn himself in or help him get away. Which is the good choice?

Bad example.

Here's a more suitable one: an old lady needs help across the road. You can either carry her across on a wave of sunshine and butterflies, crying because you received a compliment afterwards, or you can SHOOT DA *****.

See my point?

I was making an example of a vague decision that people ask for but don't really want, but yeah that pretty much what they generally are right now. Mostly because its a hell of a lot easier to justify either or as evil or good. Not ALL games are like that though. Fallout 3 has some misleading once i have noticed. Others with a more subtle good or bad ending. The vampire family comes to mind. There were multiple ways to end that. One was clearly evil while the true good one you had to work at to get.

My problem with morale choices is that some games tend to do them quite annoyingly. You may want to be good, but it's just so boring and rubbish that you want to just cut up all the annoying townsfolk. I think I'm talking about fable here. If a game gives your a moral choice system where each option will still be fun I'm completely ok with that, it's just that it either tends to be "fun" or "listening to people moan".

Completely agree with you as well. Both sides should be fun regardless of how you go about things. Being good shouldn't be a punishment.

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

if you dont like the game then just DONT PLAY THE GAME.
Morale choices are fun, and games shouldnt be realistic.
plus you have to realise that these people put months of thier time and billions of dollars into making you this tiny little disk so you can be happy, accept it nicely you douches.
last thing.
to all the people who say "it just forces you to play it twice" well, so?
is it bad that they want you to play the game a little longer?

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

This is an example and its not a silly arguement also Heavy Rain spoilers

Spoiler

Theres a part where the Origami killer must take care of a baby. Fair enough at this point you do not know he is the killer but on my second playthough i really want to feel like the decisions I make change everything. Wheres the option to drop the baby? Wheres the option to let the suicidal woman die and simply leave? Nowhere. The game forces you along a linear path at certain points then you get to choose at others even though the path is much the same.

You criticized Heavy Rain. I must defend it at all costs.

I loved heavy rain

Oh, wait.
OT: The reason people might complain about moral choices is either:
a) Because they're not willing to make the choices "moral" and just try to find the most profitable solution
b) Because the absolute majority of these moral choices are "good or evil" and that is bullshit.
Another shameful plug for my favorite game of all-time incoming but Heavy Rain really does it as good as I can imagine, but it is only good if you're willing to act how you would act in the circumstances rather than try to find profit.
For example,

Spoiler: Heavy Rain spoilers

I shot Nathaniel. Seriously, without warning, without talking to him, I shot him.
The game put my nerves to the test and I failed. That's how choices are supposed to work. They're supposed to challenge your thought process and figure out what is the right thing to do.
Wasn't worth it, though, as I found out later.

 

[DividedUnity]

I loved heavy rain

Oh, wait.
OT: The reason people might complain about moral choices is either:
a) Because they're not willing to make the choices "moral" and just try to find the most profitable solution
b) Because the absolute majority of these moral choices are "good or evil" and that is bullshit.
Another shameful plug for my favorite game of all-time incoming but Heavy Rain really does it as good as I can imagine, but it is only good if you're willing to act how you would act in the circumstances rather than try to find profit.
For example,

Spoiler: Heavy Rain spoilers

I shot Nathaniel. Seriously, without warning, without talking to him, I shot him.
The game put my nerves to the test and I failed. That's how choices are supposed to work. They're supposed to challenge your thought process and figure out what is the right thing to do.
Wasn't worth it, though, as I found out later.

Hahaha. Yeah I know I criticised it but im allowed to. I had so much fun playing it through to see all the endings and getting the platinum was a nice bonus. It still had its problems though

The problem I had wth nathaniel was

Spoiler

that I shot him by accident the first time. I just seen the big button icon come up and instinctively pushed it. I found it pretty easy to react how I would because that in the mansion was just so darn hateable. I just thought screw being high and might this guy needs to die

The the other points I mentioned before too.

Before I get too off topic I rest my case

 

[Wolfram23]

What I'm looking forward to is AI that can have conversations with you, so you can say whatever you want and it will react. The game could have many personalities programmed in for all the different characters. As far as getting quests and such go, obviously the developers would have to create them but as to their outcomes there's still generally only a few possibilities so it's not to hard to have the aftermath affect the AI's opinion of you.

examples:
http://www.jabberwacky.com/
http://www.personalityforge.com/botlist.php
http://www.shakespearebot.com/

just to name a few. Imagine this stuff in a game... *my mind has been blown*

 

[Wolfram23]

I don't much like it when they're super artificial but generally I like them.

I can't wait for more intelligent AI that let's you say whatever you want and it will chat back with you, and also modify it's behaviour towards you based on your actions but also what you say - are you insulting? complimentary? etc.

examples of this are chat bots:
http://www.shakespearebot.com/
www.jabberwacky.com
www.personalityforge.com/

 

[Legion]

People who complain about moral choice system are usually trying to make money off of being negative or went into a game that advertised a moral choice system, then found there wasn't much "choice" in the moral choice system. If you've played a variety of games with so-called moral choice systems, you know that some games advertise them and then don't even make your choice have an effect on the game long-term.

I thought BioShock 2's system worked fairly well as a moral choice system. The problem is that they want complete realism from it, and that just isn't going to happen.

Well said.

Besides, I'd rather have a meaningless moral choice system that merely reflects your character (Mass Effect 2) than not have one at all.

 

[Plurralbles]

my problem with morale choices are that they don't exist.

My problem with Moral choices is that I just don't give enough of a damn about them.

No matter what the game or the devs do, they will always string you along SOME kind of string, you can't get away from it, given, "choices" or not.

 

[Flour]

Your buddy Jimmy has committed manslaughter scared he comes to you for help. You can either convince him to turn himself in or help him get away. Which is the good choice?

Bad example.

Here's a more suitable one: an old lady needs help across the road. You can either carry her across on a wave of sunshine and butterflies, crying because you received a compliment afterwards, or you can SHOOT DA *****.

See my point?

His grey area choice is best shown in the Pitt. You simply provided a black and white choice.

The choice is kidnapping a baby and giving her to people who not only wanted you to kill her parents but also don't care about her, or saving the parents. Sure, the parents are slavers but if you choose the 'good' option, all you've done is (probably) make a child's life a hell(if she survives the experiments) and replace the current slavers with a new group that has even less rules.