Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[Babitz]

Planescape: Torment did this perfect. And it's the only game that did it flawlessly well.

 

[Baneat]

Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[Zantos]

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.

See, I like that idea. I'll have to check it out, if it's like you've made out I'm surprised no one else has taken this on.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

- 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.

I really have mixed views on all of your points. As for their being "One good and one bad" decision, that's not always a bad thing, movies and books like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter don't suffer from having a definite evil and a definite good, in fact, that's part of their appeal, grand stories of righteousness overcoming wickedness. If you're trying to tell a realistic story (i.e. Fallout) then yes, it would be better to have some gray areas for players to experiment in.

I think a lot of this is your opinion, but that's the point of polls, isn't it? Thank you for the discussion.

 

[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.

See, I like that idea. I'll have to check it out, if it's like you've made out I'm surprised no one else has taken this on.

Same here, actually - it seems like more people should be doing this sort of thing. ME2 makes a head fake towards this in Legion's loyalty mission, but the paragon/renegade mechanic causes problems for the actual execution, IMO.

Keep in mind though (if you're planning to check Witcher 1 out) that there are some pretty problematic elements of that game. The combat system is pretty clunky, and there's the whole sexism issue. IMO, though, the things it does well it does very well.

 

[vxicepickxv]

You do know Ultima 4 exists, right?

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

~Tom

Ninja'd by Ultima, sweet.

The morality system in the Ultima series is great, because of the fact that it's almost all shades of gray.

"You're returning a large sack of money to a personal friend, and you come upon a beggar. Which of the following do you do?

a)Honorably bring all of the money to your friend.
b)Compassionately slip the beggar a few coins, knowing they won't be missed.

That quote might not be exact word for word, but it's a sample of the character creation. Morality with no right or wrong answers(unless you're powergaming, then you avoid humility as an answer because you don't get a stat bonus for it)

There are no achievements for the game, there is only the game.

By the way, We're talking late 80s early 90s for the series, with both NPC schedules and time cycles.

 

[Lullabye]

No. It's like saying 'a story is bad for a game because'
-it limits the decisions of the developer because you can only have a set choice.
-it doesn't take into account all the grey areas and persons preference
-- 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.

So by that logic games are better without a single main story yes?
[sub]I love this new capthca[/sub]

 

[Twilight_guy]

I don't think it breaks the game, I just think nobody has created a good morality system yet. The current systems are usually Binary (life isn't as simple as good/bad) have one clear "right" and "wrong" option (kill the puppy or save an orphan with minimal repercussions, the system could easily force you to save one or the other and thus both options have rewards and consequences instead of help someone or be dick) and are far to invasive (see Infamous where the game forces you to be one or the other or Mass Effect where the game always pops up to tell you the karma result of your action). A good morality system would have consequence no matter what option you take, would be tucked away enough to not force your hand, would not have "good" and "bad" since those have preexist connotation, and would not be as obvious as +5 good or -5 bad since then its less your view on the options and more what the developers tell you to view in the actions. Its complicated and not that easy to implement but current systems... well they suck.

 

[Zantos]

Keep in mind though (if you're planning to check Witcher 1 out) that there are some pretty problematic elements of that game. The combat system is pretty clunky, and there's the whole sexism issue. IMO, though, the things it does well it does very well.

Is it a good story? I'm doing a run through all the mythological hack n slashers I've missed over the years, and it's taught me that if I like the story I will put up with bad combat systems (along with things that don't even make sense). Plus this sexism can't be any worse than the racism that seems to have become a requirement of most new releases.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Keep in mind though (if you're planning to check Witcher 1 out) that there are some pretty problematic elements of that game. The combat system is pretty clunky, and there's the whole sexism issue. IMO, though, the things it does well it does very well.

Is it a good story? I'm doing a run through all the mythological hack n slashers I've missed over the years, and it's taught me that if I like the story I will put up with bad combat systems (along with things that don't even make sense). Plus this sexism can't be any worse than the racism that seems to have become a requirement of most new releases.

The story's pretty YMMV - it's very good once it gets going, but takes a long time to get going. I personally like it, but plenty of people don't for equally legitimate reasons. And the sexism is mostly re: the sex card mechanic - the game actually has some really strong female characters. IMO it's definitely there, but it's not as bad as some people say it is. But yeah, by all means check it out - lots of people (myself included) really like it

 

[brighteye]

I like morality to make an impact on the story in a game, but i still hope for some big exspansion on the system.
Not only good vs evil , but perhaps charitable vs greedy, enviromentally sound vs corporate industrialist and so on.
It would have been interesting if Shepard in ME saved a colony and after that donated some money so the colonists could build some laser towers for future defence and for extra security Shepard sold them some weapons ( for a substansial profit ).

Good - charitable - corporate industrialist.

Or the opposite, Shepard convince the colonists that the buildings is a reaper target and they should have a better chance of surviving by going low tech in wood huts in a distant forest, and after that he sell the metal buildings to scrap dealers for a big profit.

Evil - Greedy - enviromentally friendly.

You get the idea, the variables could be 50+ or even more....

 

[Xaio30]

I'm all in for the "Decisions and Consequences" style of play. No Karma or good/evil contrast.

 

[King Toasty]

No. InFamous implemented it ALMOST perfectly. The only flaw was forcing you to be completely evil/completely good. But it doubles replay value, makes the gameplay more interesting and helps build a character.

Now, we're not yet at the point of, "Ohh this question shakes e to the very soul", but we might be. I have faith in this mechanic, if it's done right more.

 

[Dr Jones]

Play The Witcher 1 and 2. Games are full of morality decisions, its all about having to decide which is the greater good or lesser evil.

 

[Xanadu84]

Morality systems don't break games by there nature: They CAN make them worse, but that is in sloppy execution. There are 2 ways that moral choice can be a great addition(Or perhaps I should say at least 2 ways). First, the game can use Morality to add real choice. Rather then blanket good versus evil, it can explore the more grey areas that truly let players explore the concept of morality. Case in point, the HORRIBLE failure of Fable 3. It started out so perfect: rule with an iron fist but save lives, be the benevolent ruler over a dead kingdom. There was some wonderful morality systems to explore here, they just..reverted to a bland, black and white saint versus hitler dichotomy. Alternatively, the simplicity of a games moral choice could bear some metaphorical weight. Bioshock for example, could have used an overly simplified system of good versus evil in contrast with the black and white, uncompromising vision of a battle between Objectivism and Collectivism. Were that to happen, Bioshock would earn some serious artistic points for it's rather bianary system for morality. Sure, that didn't happen, but its easy to see how possible it would have been.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Ah, black and white, good and evil, saint or baby eating. I do love those arbitrary choices...

Here's a game that did it superbly well: Deus Ex. There are no real choices, just the way you play. There's no real morality, just how characters react to you based on your actions. There is no impact on the ending, which you can still decide then. It's just a surprisingly well done reaction mechanic. Remember Sam? Yeah, I felt really bad about storming that hotel after the speech he gave me...

Here's a game that did it superbly badly: inFamous. It's the evil/good dichotomy, which actually fits quite well with the comic feel the game is going for. No, it's the consequences of the actions. An evil choice (in the case of Cole, anti-hero and aspiring Satan du jour) is supposed to be reprehensible, but far easier. Similarly, a goody two-shoes choice (ColeJeebus 2.0 - now improved) should be harder or take longer to complete, but is free of that pesky feeling of guilt. inFamous had none of that. Each choice was equally easy, and had equal rewards - some balance issues aside. This in turn made the choices completely meaningless. It's irrelevant whether I am a dick or a saint, I'll get the same benefits, but a different ending. I think Yahtzee made this point as well.

Mass Effect had a nice idea, but ultimately failed as the choices are still labeled as good and evil synonyms. It's nice that Bioware is trying to move away from the annoying good/evil dichotomy with some gray stuff, but sadly ME hasn't quite delivered on that. Still hopeful for ME3 though...

 

[Snotnarok]

In most games no but I liked it in Mass Effect and it's sequel even more.

However Infamous and it's sequel I think it made potentially a great pair of games into mediocre ones.

 

[Jfswift]

I think they work fine if used properly. The problem that games like Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and Alpha Protocol suffer from when employing a morality system isn't so much that they use one but that they assign a sound effect or point value system to your decisions. You shouldn't be able to see so readily how your decisions affect those around you. The only game to date that's done this correctly is the original Deux Ex which only shows the reaction to your comments and not a bar, point system or sound effect (if I remember correctly).

 

[TurboPanda]

The biggest problem is games rewarding players for going all evil all or all good. Whether it's better allies, unique weapons, a better ending or even achievements games need to reward players who choose there own path just as much as the ones who are all evil/good. Moral choices need to be made based on what you think is right, not what is going to make Fawkes the Super Mutant be your sidekick.

It would be better to have a more in depth system than simply Good or bad. Kind of like a dungeons and dragons alignment cart. You could be an evil character that avoids violence and prefers to use bribery and persuasion to get what they want (e.g Rupert Murdoch). You could also have a good character who is emotional unstable and prefers to end arguments with a head shot than democracy.

 

[Scow2]

I disagree with "Morality Systems" breaking games, partially because I do believe in Absolute Morality. Games like Fable, inFamous, and Fallout benefit from them, because they give you a good indication of how the inhabitants of the world perceive you. However, I feel that "Ultimate Rewards" achieved by maxing out on one end of the morality system do break it if it tries going binary.

In linear games like Knights of the Old Republic, Quest For Glory, and even inFamous to a degree I love the implementation of the Moraltiy system. What I don't think people got about KotoR was it told one of two stories: Either Darth Revan's return to power as the Dark Lord of the Sith, or the redemption of Revan, and his ascendance as the shining paragon of the Jedi Order. KotoR II was the same way. (In essence, you are supposed to stick with one direction, with the other side serving as "Temptations" to draw you back from 100% completion). inFamous takes a similar approach, either how Cole was corrupted by the power and fucked the world over, or did the right thing in spite of "himself". In Quest for Glory, it only measures how "Good" you are: You're always a hero.

In sandbox games like Fallout and Fable benefit from them by having only appearance and people's reactions to your character change based on your alignment position: Being in a grey area doesn't deprive you of End-game power. Also, the morality system saves the game the trouble of having to individually shape every NPC's opinion of you: If you're Jesus, sensible people will love you, while corrupt people will hate you. If you're the other guy, everyone's scared of you or hates you, but the corrupt guys might enjoy your company because you're just like them.