Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[ms_sunlight]

Morality systems don't break games; they do encourage and reward metagaming, though. If you can only get certain outcomes, or certain reactions from NPCs or companions, through attaining certain scores then the morality system becomes a game in its own right and this can have a serious effect on game immersion.

I prefer games where morality, reputation etc. is invisible to the player save by effects in the game world. I don't like meters or numerical scores, I like just seeing things play out.

 

[viranimus]

Is it that morallity systems are bad.. Or is it that morality systems are the new thing thats cool to pick on.

Seriously since Infamous 2 came out.. theres been at least a dozen different threads about how this is something bad.

Its not morallity systems that are the problem its lazy developers who only give you the choices of do everything for the moron NPCs and protect them from themselves. Or Serve your own interests and be the bad guy.

Good is rarely "good" Evil is something more than just being an obnoxious prick and when it comes down to moral choices more often than not its not a "good" choice or a "bad" choice. Its typically having to make a choice from options that are all bad.

However being critical of this does not make me want this less in games. These are the learning stages for developers. I WANT them to continue making morality based games... because its where I want games to eventually get to, and what we see today in them is little more the baby steps in the infancy of a potentially new genre. The longer they make them, the better they will get at making them. Need proof, Look at how New Vegas handled morality.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I think New Vegas did it quite well. It wasn't a morality system, more a 'choose your side' system, and it worked. You know, besides the glitches.

It's a faction reputation system, similar to the one in Morrowind, not a morality system. It works because your primary means of recognising how you're doing is how characters treat you, not some number or gauge on a menu screen.

 

[Scow2]

Again, Games like Fable, Fallout, and Knights of the Old Republic all benefited from their morality system, albiet different reasons:
Fable allows you to choose where between Superman or The Evil Overlord (From the Overlord games) you fall, and the world is superficial enough that it doesn't need an overly complex system... The games' superficial and frivolous nature makes it a nice selling point.
Fallout benefits because a major theme of that game is how The Vault Dweller, Chosen One, and Lone Wanderer are remembered, and their legacy, combined with localized instances: If you were mostly a decent person, the end would show how you improved the world, and glaze over the small handful of dickish things you might have done (Like Abraham Lincoln), or if you were a scourge of the waste, it shows how you turned the world for the worst, and ignore the few good things you might have done (Like Vlad the Impaler)
... I've already said how KotoR benefitted from the system.

The problems are caused when the writers don't make the intention of the Morality system clear (Infamous was marketed as a sandbox game, not an Urban Superhero/Villain RPG), or have the results be arbitrary in which outcome was which (Yes, I'm looking at you, Fable III).

 

[Sarah Frazier]

One slight hiccough I had with dialogue options was not the good/evil options, but simply not knowing what the intended tone is. I saw an option that I thought was a "Let me get to know you" option, but it turned out to be the option to tell them to buzz off. Sure I wasn't fielding them, but it was still so unexpected that I wondered why there wasn't a note of context about how the question is being asked. I have seen some clips of DA:2 that have different emoticons, which is an improvement, but still somewhat generic.

 

[McNinja]

- It limits the decisions that the developer can ask you of as there must always be one good and one bad decision.

- It doesn't take into account the grey areas and the person's preference(see Extra Credits on the Mass Effect 2 Legion side quest).

- Reality isn't clean cut it makes the game world seem designed through the eyes of a child which reinforces the sterotypical view of gaming is for children.

- You only ever make the choice once, especially where achievements are involved, you only decide once at the start to be good, bad or neutral.

This is an atrocity in games where your character is supposed to be a deep and complex being. However it works for inFamous as the developers intend for you to play as either a Hero or Anti-Hero, they aren't out to provide you with deep, thought provoking dilemmas, they're out to provide you with two experiences in one game.

However games such as Mass Effect, Fable, KOTOR and Fallout 3's systems are horrible and while they don't break games, they're worse off for having them.

I barely noticed any difference in InFamous, including having other "evil" quests disappear.

Fable's is barely like that. You can't really choose dialogue options, except in three, but let's not talk about that game. I didn't even really notice it in FO3, or KOTOR for that matter. Mass Effect is slightly more clear cut, but if you want to play neutral, you can.

I mean, would you rather you just aren't able to pick what you say? If the answer is yes, games like Mass Effect aren't for you. Games like ME and FO3 have those systems so a player can roleplay the character however they want. That bit about grey areas? Go play some Dragon Age Origins. You can only put so much in a game.

 

[FalloutJack]

Waiting for an "It depends" option. Otherwise, poll is invalid.

 

[DementedSheep]

Well I don't know if they "break" a game but they certainly do allot of damage to some. The only time morality systems work is when the game is going for a childish view of morality with you either being Jesus or a baby eater and not trying to be complex at all. In games which are trying to have some depth like mass effect the morality sytem takes allot away from it. Especaily since they lumped everthing together with speach.
Many games would be better if they just gave you the choices and had things change that are a result of that but didn?t push a system on you or tie it with skills. DA:O handled it well I think. tho the major choices were just followed up in a text scroll at the end.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I barely noticed any difference in InFamous, including having other "evil" quests disappear.

Fable's is barely like that. You can't really choose dialogue options, except in three, but let's not talk about that game. I didn't even really notice it in FO3, or KOTOR for that matter. Mass Effect is slightly more clear cut, but if you want to play neutral, you can.

I mean, would you rather you just aren't able to pick what you say? If the answer is yes, games like Mass Effect aren't for you. Games like ME and FO3 have those systems so a player can roleplay the character however they want. That bit about grey areas? Go play some Dragon Age Origins. You can only put so much in a game.

But it's an allure with the promise of complex decision making that pisses me off, especially when it turns out to be a basic choice between two ends of a scale. Take Fallout 3's karma system and stand it next to Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system. Both keep track of my 'good' and 'bad' deeds, but one puts it on a scale and the other simply puts it on a tally. I can rack up as much fame as I can infamy, but my karma slider will only accept one or the other.

Fable's isn't as bad in the first game, at least when strutting around people will openly applaud me for saving the day recently whilst equally fearing me for the reckless destruction I've unleashed upon Albion before then. It's not the morality system I'm saying is bad, it's having it on a visible scale that deducts from the experience.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I feel that they can be improved but at least this way we have options and we actually affect the game world other then killing a few things.

 

[ChupathingyX]

nature makes it a nice selling point.
Fallout benefits because a major theme of that game is how The Vault Dweller, Chosen One, and Lone Wanderer are remembered, and their legacy, combined with localized instances: If you were mostly a decent person, the end would show how you improved the world, and glaze over the small handful of dickish things you might have done (Like Abraham Lincoln), or if you were a scourge of the waste, it shows how you turned the world for the worst, and ignore the few good things you might have done

What about the Courier in New Vegas?

New Vegas probably has the most grey morality in the Fallout series, along with Fallout 1. Look at the ending of Honest Hearts, you can't really say either is better or worse than the other, they both have their pros and cons and it comes down to personal opinion. The game doesn't tell you which is good or bad and that is what makes it a grey morality choice.

 

[McNinja]

-snip snip sni- MOTHRA WTF ARE YOU DOIN- AAAAAAAAAAAUGH-

But it's an allure with the promise of complex decision making that pisses me off, especially when it turns out to be a basic choice between two ends of a scale. Take Fallout 3's karma system and stand it next to Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system. Both keep track of my 'good' and 'bad' deeds, but one puts it on a scale and the other simply puts it on a tally. I can rack up as much fame as I can infamy, but my karma slider will only accept one or the other.

Fable's isn't as bad in the first game, at least when strutting around people will openly applaud me for saving the day recently whilst equally fearing me for the reckless destruction I've unleashed upon Albion before then. It's not the morality system I'm saying is bad, it's having it on a visible scale that deducts from the experience.

I see what you mean. That's why I like Dragon Age: Origins system. No scale (only the team-mates, but you can buy/find their happiness, so they don't count). Fable 1 was pretty good, although there was a slider for your morality, the game also took into account your appearance and level of fame as well.

Anyway, The Witcher had a pretty good system. Not for morality, but it allowed the payer to make decisions that impacted the game severely.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Anyway, The Witcher had a pretty good system. Not for morality, but it allowed the payer to make decisions that impacted the game severely.

Yeah when I played I never felt that I was making a straight cut bad or good decision. Some offered short term advantages while others showed their usefulness in later chapters.

 

[Araksardet]

They don't break games, and they would even be a positive good, in a very different form, if implemented properly. The problem is that they generally only favor one extreme or the other, which is pretty lame.

Instead, morality systems ought to be about different people reacting differently to your choices based on consequences, and about presenting the player with choices that test a player's moral sensibilities.

Morality is rarely about good and evil - it's about priorities. What's more important, the common good or individual integrity? Revenge for past ills, or forgiveness in the hopes of future healing? Freedom of expression, or respect and harmony? These are real moral problems that people stand and fall for, and these are the kinds of things that should be reflected in games. Not "Kill teh kittenz or give teh kittenz warm milks!!".

 

[Kryzantine]

I think morality systems are amazing for video games, it's just that linear, black and white morality systems break them.

People have already mentioned the Witcher series as an example of a series that does morality right - this is mostly achieved through not having a morality meter. Your choices do not build up to some arbitrary reward for leaning one way or the other, nor do they shift the character's personality. Shades of grey everywhere, nothing in the game telling you that Choice A gives you +5 on the karma scale and Choice B gives you -5 on the karma scale. There is no karma scale, really, it's just you. That's a morality system done right.

But let me cite a 2nd example that has gone unnoticed - Alpha Protocol has something similar to The Witcher, in that it's not so cut-and-dry. However, all your choices have consequences. There is never a choice that dominates another choice, and that's the beauty of the game. I can't really explain why, but AP made me think at a lot of points. Even if I was trying to follow a path, some choices were just very difficult.

 

[Bostur]

Point based morality systems often artificially limits games in ways that isn't needed. It's probably an old relic from AD&D based games that developers forgot to re-examine.

Morality in games in general is a huge subject that can be implemented with varying degrees of success. There are so many ways to do it that it all depends on the specifics.

I think its cool when past actions come back to bite me in the backside. Its also cool when past actions return to give me a warm fuzzy feeling. It's not so cool when I feel I need to powergame morale to get +1 awesomeness.

 

[Kair]

I think grey areas happen more in some video games than in reality. Examples are the Witcher games.

In reality I see clearly what is good and what is bad, because actions are not limited to the whim of a developer.

 

[StormShaun]

I love the mortality systems if you check out my profile it says im independent good (Good but if the Govt is evil, screw them) the morality systems made me discover my true self, and also it makes me feel good eith myself thinking that I can do good in everything.

Im all good people.

 

[violent_quiche]

I agree with "not a breaker, but not always an improver"

Having replayed ME1 and 2 back to back recently, the morality system in 1 was better implemented than 2. Dialogue choices in 1 were a product of the Charm/Intimidate talents, not Paragon Renegade which made sense to me- you could theoretically be a charming renegade or an intimidating paragon. Tying the two together in ME2 locked you into one style of play or the other, leaving little room to explore the middle ground.

Legion's mission aside, Mordin's arc was another example:

The paragon route wanted to Shepard to completely condemn the genophage however, it seemed equally reasonable to me that Shepard would agree or at least keep a neutral stance given all the variables- prolific Krogan breeding, long life, warlike demeanour, etc. In choosing the pointless "neutral" option, the game docked points for playing the role as I saw it- potentially leaving me short on paragon percentage for crucial moments like the crew fights.


Also

Impossible to believe a renegade Shepard would kill Samara in favour of her sick, psychotic daughter. That wasn't a renegade choice, that was just plain old evil


As much as I loved ME2, forcing players into Paragon or Renegade paths eliminated many of the grey areas that made the original story compelling, so here's hoping they at least separate them in ME3. The basic problem is not that I disagreed with the writers; it's that my choice wasn't informed by consideration of the story but by "will this net me enough points?". Whatever video game role playing means, that isn't it.

 

[Vault101]

I dont mind them, if the game is good then it doesnt ruin the game

the only thing that kinda annoys me is when you have to be ALL good or ALL evil...when you cant mix things up a bit, for osme reaosn it makes me feel like Im playing it wrong

like DAl:O or the fallout games (more or less) you had more depth to the whole morality thing