Poll: Good or Bad. Your Call?

[Kordie]

I have seen a few posts on the topic of "good vs bad" characters in video games. Most complaints are that even playing a "bad" guy lean towards being pushed into good actions through the story. I was wondering how people felt about the following options for how to deal with this.

1. The player controls everything, from character design to choices of good or evil in every quest. (Many RPG's, such as the Elder Scrolls series)

2. The developer controls everything. The character is this way and thats how he acts. (Some RPG's like Diablo 3, also many FPS's like Half-life)

3. Pick good or bad from the start and roll with it (Kind of like prototype or many starwars games. While you could choose to switch alignments halfway through, you are usually too deep in one direction for it to be meaningful)

So here are my thoughts on the issue. With a player controling everything, the obvious plus is all the extra freedom you get. The drawback, is that when you can do anything, it all needs to be balanced for a gameplay point and that can rely in some empty choices. It also tends to lock out content. Choices like in Fallout 3, Nuke megaton and be evil, or not nuke and have more to do there.

Developers picking everything I find can lead to some good stories, but can possibly break immersion when your character does something you wouldn't normally do. This style works better when there is a specific story to be told. Obviously the downside is much less freedom to be a prick (unless your character is one by design)

The third option is my proposed middle ground. Early on in the game you choose what faction/alignment you will join early on in the game and you stick with it. I believe this would let the developers create an immersive story and allow some freedom in their world without having the inconsistency of a character who can torch an orphanage and then save a box of kittens. The big drawback here is that it will never be as free as other games, it also requires effectivly making multiple stories. Or maybe one story from different points of view. The advantage I see, is being able to make a more immersive experience in whatever role you choose.

Thoughts?

*edit I realise it depends on how the rest of the game is set, I'm asking for your general prefered style.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, the developer always has at least some control, no matter what. I mean, they made the game which presented the options; you are really only doing the things they allow you to do. I gander what you are talking about is the degree to which the developer controls the experience. To which I say, depends on the game. Some games, like the Uncharted series, work well with the developer controlling nearly every part of the experience. Some games, like the aforementioned TES series, work well with the developer giving the player a lot of freedom. It really depends on what the dev is going for.

 

[TheOneBearded]

It depends on what type of game it is. RPGs have players having more freedom in what they can and can't do. Other types, like FPS, don't have as much freedom. A good example is Bioshock where you choose what to do with the little sisters, but that is the only extent of your choices.

 

[veloper]

Neither. Give me grey choices every time.

 

[Lilani]

It depends on what type of game it is. RPGs have players having more freedom in what they can and can't do. Other types, like FPS, don't have as much freedom. A good example is Bioshock where you choose what to do with the little sisters, but that is the only extent of your choices.

Exactly. Sometimes your character IS a set character, a la Gears of War, MGS, etc. Other times there is room for roleplaying, like Half-Life, Mass Effect, etc. It all depends on the type of story they are trying to tell.

 

[Esotera]

The developer is going to have to influence how the character acts to at least some degree, as they've created the world and defined all the possible interactions that can happen with it.

I think a bit of moral choice is great, but the only games that really need a lot of moral choice as a mechanic is most RPGs.

 

[Eddie the head]

Neither. Give me grey choices every time.

Where as the world dose not always work in black and white, it dose not always work in gray as well.

 

[Phlakes]

Well, if the game has choice there should be choice, if the PC is a written character then they're whatever they're supposed to be.

 

[Nexxis]

I think a bit of both. I do like when a game can tell me a good story and some characters are just meant to act certain ways. I think that players should have almost complete control in RPG games were the player creates the character(s) that they. Sometimes, those created characters are meant to represent the player in whatever world the developers give them creating a sense of immersion. Sometimes, it's frustrating when you have moments when you say "my character would never do that" in those games. I do think that's it's impossible to give players every choice imaginable due to game limits and that sometimes certain choices HAVE to be made to progress a story, but there should at least be more than one choice for a player to choose from or else they might feel disconnected from the experience.

 

[skywolfblue]

The third option is my proposed middle ground. Early on in the game you choose what faction/alignment you will join early on in the game and you stick with it. I believe this would let the developers create an immersive story and allow some freedom in their world without having the inconsistency of a character who can torch an orphanage and then save a box of kittens. The big drawback here is that it will never be as free as other games, it also requires effectivly making multiple stories. Or maybe one story from different points of view. The advantage I see, is being able to make a more immersive experience in whatever role you choose.

So instead of making (for example) paragon or renegade choices throughout the game, you choose at the very start and the game auto-dialogues for you?

I probably wouldn't like that very much. Even on a "full paragon" playthrough sometimes there are 1 or 2 choices that I'd want to do as renegade or vice versa. So letting the player decide on an active case-by-case basis is more interesting then being given an "option" at the beginning that the player doesn't really know how it will all play out.

While I do enjoy a few RPGs, I find that I enjoy solidly written protagonists (like John Marston or Ezio) over "blank slate" characters.

 

[The Thinker]

I believe this would let the developers create an immersive story and allow some freedom in their world without having the inconsistency of a character who can torch an orphanage and then save a box of kittens.

That's not inconsistent! I just like kittens.

 

[thePyro_13]

Characters are complicated things, when the player gets to flip back and forth between completely opposing character traits, like good and evil then you have to abandon any real substance for that character.

A character created by the player cannot have any real character development(anything worth developing would probably conflict with one or more of the players choices in a way that breaks immersion), nor can they be immersive(as their dialog will contradict their behaviour far too often).

When the player can decide who the character is, then that character stops being a part of the story, and becomes an extra actor, who watches and poke the story, but never becomes part of it.

This can work, but not if your character is the main character. In a game where the player doesn't need to be the centre of attention then it's a non-issue. But in a story based game(like mass effect) the main character just feels like a by-polar lunatic who walked onto the set.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself as a game designer, what are you gaining by adding this good or evil choices, and what are you taking away. Is the option to be a good guy or a bad guy worth making the main character nonsensical and incoherent?

 

[veloper]

Neither. Give me grey choices every time.

Where as the world dose not always work in black and white, it dose not always work in gray as well.

The real world? A black or white choice with similar positive outcome to the subject, is only a real choice to a madman. Who else but a crazy person would go out of his or her way to be a villain?
Black is unrealistic.
Dark grey where the alternative to villainy will cost the actor greatly is where in-game choices may become believeable and interesting again.

 

[Deadyawn]

It depends. If it's a game with a linear narrative then, yes, the devlopers should determine all the main characters choices because that's the point.

If, however, they want to allow the player to influence the story then they should give the player complete control over every action involving some kind of moral choice.

Incidentally, the whole good vs bad system (I.E. karma, paragon/renegade, light/dark blah blah blah) is dumb and should go away. Every choice should be taken based on its own context and consequences should be directly related to the choice you made and how it affects the world. This is why the system in mass effect in the first two entries sucked. It treated choices as either good, bad or nothing. Even in morally ambiguous situations there was a difinitive right and wrong. Plus, sometimes to take a good or bad option you would have to have made a certain amount of choices of the same kind previously. I shouldn't have to kick a dog before I'm allowed to shoot a guy. it's silly.

Ultimately, what you want to avoid is making it feel like the writers are judging you because thats not helpful and it makes the choices less interesting. Unfortunately, this is what many morality sytems explicitly do.

 

[Unsilenced]

"Faction" isn't necessarily the same as your moral beliefs, and no one faction will ever match what a given player wants to do with their character.

Even when playing a good character there are times I like to break that. My paragon Shepard kicked a guy out a window and left a wounded bataarian terrorist to bleed out on the floor. At other times she saved lives and went out of her way to avoid unnecessary conflict.

With evil characters, you only make the problem of "stupid evil" even worse. If the evil alignment is pants-on-head retarded ("HEY GUYS! LET'S SHOOT PUPPIES, THEN ASK PEOPLE TO HELP US!") then it would suck to be stuck with that just because you want to play a character that's occasionally capable of falcon-punching reporters.

 

[EHKOS]

Yeah, I didn't like how Cole handled both sides. He was kind of a flat character, and either because SP needed him that way to cover both sides, or he was just that way, I found him unconvincing.

 

[The_Waspman]

The problem is that with games with moral choice systems - especially ones where the choices are percieved to matter - then you don't get anything for choosing the middle ground, even if that is an option. Mass Effect 2 is probably the best example for this, in that you pretty much have to play either full paragon or fuill renegade if you want those two big loyalty choices to be successful.

The other example is inFamous 2, where being evil Cole just doesn't make sense. Sure, you can run round killing everyone you see, and destroy as much as you want, but you get to a cutscene and no-one calls him on it. You can tell the cutscenes were designed with good Cole in mind (since good Cole is Canon), and to have him kill a few hundred people and then get to a cutscene and be on his high horse about saving people from the 'big bad' is jarring.

Yahtzee has made this point several times, and I agree, in that you only really get two choices, either 'Saint' or 'Asshole'. Yes its a limitation of the medium, because to factor in about twelve different choices into every decision would be prohibitively expensive, but to only have the black/white option available is something of a disservice to the player.

 

[Patrick Buck]

Well, depends on the game. I think in a game like prototype, you shouldn't have the choice. It would be a bit insane. A game where you get so much bonuses like health, and a way to hide by killing Civvys, taking that out would be a major shot in the knee for a good player.

But then again... in a game like Half life, you have to be at least modertly good, or the plot would make no sense, why would everyone love freeman, even AFTER the Ophanage massacre?

 

[purplecactus]

It depends, really. If games are written in a certain way then ok, that's the way they should be played. Adding change would require altering story lines and all that kind of thing, I'd imagine. However, when you're building a character then you should have the freedom of choice, I think. If you want to go evil, it should be possible to go evil providing it can work within the story, if there is any.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

People really seem to get the wrong idea with moral systems in gaming. They aren't giving the choice to be the hero or the villain. They are giving the choice to be heroic or villainous.

This problem is largely the developers fault though. I find that the "evil" option always seems to be thrown together haphazardly.

I recall in the original Mass Effect you had a choice to save some hostage (paragon) or take down the Batarian terrorist that captured them in the first place (renegade); this in my mind is a good example of how choices should be, do you save those in immediate danger or do you try to prevent what could be many more deaths. Alternatively, there were plenty of times in the Mass Effect franchise where the renegade option made strategically no sense, it was just there to be a dick. The dev team really should have sat down and added consistency to the renegade path.

(Note: I use ME as an example because practically everyone in the gaming world is familiar with it).

I think The Witcher is a perfect example how a moral choice system should work. There was no definitive right or wrong, good or bad, there simply was different sides. I made my choices in The Witcher because they were the choices I wanted to make, not because I was trying to be evil enough to unlock a new ability or enough of a boy scout to open up new dialog.

I feel like developers should get over this whole idea of player made decisions determining morality, and concentrate on the impact of the decisions themselves. If I'm fighting a battle and given the choice to save the children on base or save the soldiers who will join the fight, who is to say which choice is morally right?