Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[weker]

Here is my opinion of why:

- 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.

Anyone who wishes me to extend any of these bullet points further let me know.

It's also the reason why i think that alpha protocol is the best game i have played for around 2 or 3 years in terms of innovation.

 

[Vakz]

Yes

Bioshock

Me: "I'm harvesting the little sisters to enable me to survive in this harsh environment where everything wants to kill me, its them or me"

The game "you are evil for doing that which makes you hitler so when you escape all you want to do is kill"

This bothered me a lot. I went for "I harvest them, because I need it to survive". Then when the doctor saved me (can't recall her name at the moment), I started with "Oh, I was wrong, I need to be nice to them!" and stopped harvesting them, saving every single one past that point, but I still ended up looking like hitler in the end-movie.

 

[Blackpapa]

The problem is that if it is a good game the players will search the entire game and all of it's files and open up the whole system and how it works therefore making the invisibility useless. Then all it will take is a quick look at a wiki to see how your decisions affect the game.

And here I was going to flame you before you edited your post and put that fragment about the wiki. Which is perfectly valid. I can't remember when I last wrote an unpak utility just to try and decipher the scripts of a single-player game.

Wikis are the problem, but if players want to spoil the game then there's nothing you can do.

 

[TheKruzdawg]

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.

The system for KotOR fits perfectly in that universe. There exists two moral extremes and absolutes, Jedi (good) and Sith (evil). Since your character becomes can use the Force, it makes sense to judge your actions in game based on whether you are a Jedi or a Sith.

For example, a Jedi wouldn't kill an unarmed enemy who surrenders, despite what they've done. A Sith would.

 

[DirgeNovak]

As much as I love Infamous, its morality system is inherently broken. I'm not asking to be able to see all the content in one playthrough, but I am asking to be able to actually choose my path when the game prompts me to. I was on the evil path in Infamous 2, but I intended on doing the right thing in the end. The game didn't even let me choose which mission I did in the end.

And despite all its flaws, Dragon Age II had one of the greatest morality systems in the history of gaming. It would have been better if it had changed at least some story elements, particularly the ending, but the depth of the character relations in DA II compensated for most of the gameplay issues.

 

[Blackpapa]

It's also the reason why i think that alpha protocol is the best game i have played for around 2 or 3 years in terms of innovation.

Alpha Protocol doesn't have a morality system, instead it tracks each meaningful choice and changes the world based on which option was chosen.

It does, however, track reputation with individual characters. In a way this could be understood as tracking separate aspects of morality - specifically how much a character is aligned with a given NPC's moral system.

Which is pretty much a distant version of the system I described. Either way it avoids a single scale.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I prefer them when they aren't black-and-white evil or good. I really like ME's system, you choose to be the good cop, following procedure and being nice, or bad cop, cutting corners and shoving guns in peoples' faces to get to the same place as the good cop.

Also I'd point to Metro 2033's system, you can choose to be open minded or close minded, neither is really good or evil, and both have their own beneifts and problems, and it affects the end game very well.

 

[rhodriharris]

I don't think they break games but I also think they are done poorly. Morality is a very subjective thing and as such is very dificult thing to accuratly portray in a binary system (wich is the only way I can remember it being done). I think players should be made to make desisions and that those desisions should have ramifactions wich may not be apparent at the time for example a course of action may please a fraction initally but this may change later on as curcumstances change.

 

[Princess Rose]

Actually, I believe the "baby eating" thing was about Infamous. Or maybe Prototype, I get those reviews confused.

It was Bioshock.

Ah, you're right - cause of the ending.

Yeah, actually, Bioshock didn't handle that particularly well either. That game was really guilty of the "make the same choice a dozen times" syndrome.

So yeah... any game that forces you to make the same decision constantly is bad. Mass Effect does it right by not forcing you to make the same decision every time - you can be very successful with a mixed character.

Actually, the paragon and renegade interrupts encourage balanced play - there is never a situation where you can use both types of interrupt, and you only get points if you use it, so if you take advantage of every interrupt, you'll end up with a nice pile of points on both scales.

 

[Laser Priest]

It's bad when games do it poorly.

Aside from a few nonsensical aspects (stealing weapons from a gang of convicts and murderers is evil?), Fallout: New Vegas handled it quite well.

And - while it is the least exciting of the add-ons so far - Honest Hearts made sure that no decisions seemed morally greater than another, and they all may lead to unforeseen consequences.

Morality System's don't break games. Poorly designed games make morality systems look bad.

 

[rayen020]

they don't break games they just need to be more subtle. to improve them;
- don't inform the player when they incur good/bad points.
- don't have every conversation cuase good/bad points.
- don't have just good/bad points on a number line, work on more of a gridded system.
- don't over emphasize the options
- have choices incur points equal to impact of decision

 

[Laser Priest]

Actually, I believe the "baby eating" thing was about Infamous. Or maybe Prototype, I get those reviews confused.

It was Bioshock.

Ah, you're right - cause of the ending.

Yeah, actually, Bioshock didn't handle that particularly well either. That game was really guilty of the "make the same choice a dozen times" syndrome.

So yeah... any game that forces you to make the same decision constantly is bad. Mass Effect does it right by not forcing you to make the same decision every time - you can be very successful with a mixed character.

Actually, the paragon and renegade interrupts encourage balanced play - there is never a situation where you can use both types of interrupt, and you only get points if you use it, so if you take advantage of every interrupt, you'll end up with a nice pile of points on both scales.

Then again, you kind of need to go to one extreme for the Paragon/Renegade points to be useful.

I love Mass Effect 2, but it's moral system is flawed due to the fact that it forces you to pick one alignment and you almost need to pick only that one if you want to succeed.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

I think morality SYSTEMS tend to break--or detract from--games. however, having CHOICES are good. In particular I'm thinking of the end of GTA 4, where

Spoiler

you choose whether or not to kill the man you spent the entire game hunting. it was an incredibly powerful, in-game moment and while the choice had 0 repercussions on the rest of the game, it was a choice that mattered nonetheless

for games like Infamous and stuff, yeah I agree with what you said (though its not really a new argument)

 

[Princess Rose]

Then again, you kind of need to go to one extreme for the Paragon/Renegade points to be useful.

I love Mass Effect 2, but it's moral system is flawed due to the fact that it forces you to pick one alignment and you almost need to pick only that one if you want to succeed.

But that isn't true. You can succeed without using the locked blue and red dialog options. You just don't succeed as stylishly.

A few of the loyalty missions could be a problem, I guess, but you don't need your Paragon/Renegade that high for most of those.

Now, remember, I didn't say pick Neutral options - those always suck. But if you pick a mix of Paragon and Renegade options, and if you lean slightly towards one, then you have plenty to max out one side.

My first playthrough, I maxed Paragon around the halfway point and never needed to choose Paragon points again. I did, because that character was very Paragon, but I didn't need to.

My next time, I played a Renegade character who had a silver tongue - she picked lots of Paragon dialog to smooze, flirt, and manipulate, then made major renegade decisions. She maxed out Renegade right before the last plot mission, but her Paragon side was at half-way filled too.

Anyway, the major plot decisions (Rachnai Live/Die, Council Live/Die, Geth Reprogrammed/Die, Collection Station Blown Up/Salvaged) never require you to have any points at all.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "succeed" - you can easily beat the game without maxing out either Paragon or Renegade. You just can't choose the coolest dialog options (which makes Shepard slightly duller than she would normally be, but doesn't stop her from kicking ass).

 

[Scumpernickle]

Morality systems have the possibility to make a game extremely deep and immersing, but only when done right.

Bioshock had a good idea, but making the same choice over and over again just became a chore, rather than making you think about the consequences.

Mass Effect handled their morality system quite well, but I think that allocating "points" or a "purity" bar to the system just breaks your immersion as you try to go for the achievement or trophy that requires you to be pure good or evil.

I believe that removing all rewards (achievements, trophies, etc.) related to morality from the game's achievement system, while keeping all in-game rewards related to your choices (story, in-game items/upgrades etc.) will help in getting morality systems their immersion back.

 

[Zantos]

I definitely think moral choice systems are improving. Each try they keep getting better, just not quite there yet. There is always the problem though of those fans of role-playing who would cry out in horror if they were trying to play a "pure good" character (I think that's the correct term for someone who plays entirely good decisions) and they got into a situation where there was no "good" solution and the only way to get out would be to do something "evil".

I do think though that morality systems are getting a bit token now in some games. I would rather a game not try and have a morality system than have a poorly thought out and hastily added one.

 

[Kahunaburger]

There is always the problem though of those fans of role-playing who would cry out in horror if they were trying to play a "pure good" character (I think that's the correct term for someone who plays entirely good decisions) and they got into a situation where there was no "good" solution and the only way to get out would be to do something "evil".

I think it can be done right if it doesn't come off as too contrived. Like in the first Witcher with the whole "choosing the lesser evil" thing.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Witcher 1.

Back side A, side B, or neither, watch chaos ensue in different ways depending on your decision.

Don't want the local witch's death on your conscience? Have fun butchering a mob of angry noncombatants.

And so on.

 

[Doomcat]

Short answer: No, they don't break games, but they really don't make sense in about 90% of them (I'm looking at you Oblivion and Fallout 3 >.>)

 

[weker]

It's also the reason why i think that alpha protocol is the best game i have played for around 2 or 3 years in terms of innovation.

Alpha Protocol doesn't have a morality system, instead it tracks each meaningful choice and changes the world based on which option was chosen.

It does, however, track reputation with individual characters. In a way this could be understood as tracking separate aspects of morality - specifically how much a character is aligned with a given NPC's moral system.

Which is pretty much a distant version of the system I described. Either way it avoids a single scale.

I agree with you, while reputation is recorded it doesn't have the same impact on the gamer. With a morality system it creates issues when things are morally gray but a rep system just tells you if what your saying is woeing the person your talking to, rather working more as a aid rather then a guide.

 

[penguindude42]

You do know Ultima 4 exists, right?

Because if you don't, there is no hope for you.

~Tom