The Good/synonym-for-good vs Bad/sysnonym-for-bad choice system is a very common way to judge the player's choices in videogames. My question is what other choices systems would you like to see in videogames and why.
Possible substitutes for the morality systems in Videogames
- Thread starter Entrophyinateacup
- Start date
- Feb 7, 2011
- 7,922
- 2,283
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I personally think that these kind of choice systems shouldn't have a world wide effect in the game. I don't like it when I'm mean to one person and then somehow everyone in the world knows about it and thinks I'm a tosser.
The people you treat badly should act hostile to you, and the people you treat decently should act decent to you. That's how it works in real life more or less, so why is it that in games when I treat one town or group of people badly I'm suddenly getting chased out of every town and village in the country?
The people you treat badly should act hostile to you, and the people you treat decently should act decent to you. That's how it works in real life more or less, so why is it that in games when I treat one town or group of people badly I'm suddenly getting chased out of every town and village in the country?
So essentially the reputation and faction system?Dirty Hipsters said:
I prefer not representing morality in any tangible numbers. The Witcher series, for instance, handles it well. The choices are much harder when it's up to you to define what good is, and what evil is.
Although I am a fan of an influence or companion relationship system. Growing a niche group within your companions.
EDIT - Ninja'd to a pulp.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 7,922
- 2,283
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
NO, I was saying how I hate the reputation and faction system because it condenses your actions to having a bearing on how a large group perceives you even if your act should really only be aimed at a SINGLE person and not an entity.Kryzantine said:
I liked how Dragon Age did it.
Moral choices exist, but they simply endear you or otherwise to your party members.
Of course, the most basic of requirements for a morality system is that "Things change because of my actions". If they don't then really it's ultimately pointless.
Moral choices exist, but they simply endear you or otherwise to your party members.
Of course, the most basic of requirements for a morality system is that "Things change because of my actions". If they don't then really it's ultimately pointless.
I like how Dragon Age attacked the problem. At no point does it ever say this is good and this is bad, instead it says: you did this, this then caused that, and let's you live with consequences. No one choice was inherently good or evil. In fact, there were pros and cons to every side, and who didn't have endless difficulty making up their minds about what the hell they were going to do with themselves? Fuck the Anvil of the Void.
Less morality, more causality. That's how the real world functions.
Less morality, more causality. That's how the real world functions.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 7,922
- 2,283
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
well aside from the faction reputation why you could make a little invisble bar for each character that measures how much they like/hate and say you kill farmer joe his family and friends will hate you more for it while the competing farmer and people he is friends with will like you more but such a system would definitly take to much time to make and would slow down the system to process all that so I say stick with faction reputations.
Been said before, but I like Dragon Age's method of doing it.
No morality bar, just reactions from your companions. It allows you to act as you choose without being defined as good/bad and it enforces the notion that your companions are real people with their own thoughts and opinions.
Expanding on that, I kind of prefer the friendship/rivalry aspect in DA2 to the approve/disapprove in DA:O.
No morality bar, just reactions from your companions. It allows you to act as you choose without being defined as good/bad and it enforces the notion that your companions are real people with their own thoughts and opinions.
Expanding on that, I kind of prefer the friendship/rivalry aspect in DA2 to the approve/disapprove in DA:O.
I think they have the right idea at the moment, it's just not deep enough.
Instead of just a basic Black/white good/evil system it should monitor the player's choices based on personality traits, Greed vs. Selflessness (telling a farmer to sod off because he can't pay you to remove the rats from his barn isn't evil, just a bit greedy) Bravery Vs. Cowardice, Spite vs. forgiveness etc.
Instead of just a basic Black/white good/evil system it should monitor the player's choices based on personality traits, Greed vs. Selflessness (telling a farmer to sod off because he can't pay you to remove the rats from his barn isn't evil, just a bit greedy) Bravery Vs. Cowardice, Spite vs. forgiveness etc.
Full out D&D Law V. Chaos Good V. Evil nine point system.
Or at the very least a Law V. Chaos, as that is far more easily quantified than Good V. Evil.
Good and Evil is based on point of view, cultural mores ect. Law and Chaos are very clearly different.
Or at the very least a Law V. Chaos, as that is far more easily quantified than Good V. Evil.
Good and Evil is based on point of view, cultural mores ect. Law and Chaos are very clearly different.
A proper replacement for the morality systems you find in most games today would be a real morality system.
The Good/Bad karma bar is done because game devs are lazy. You see if you tried to program an outcome that involved every ethical choice, then you continually compound the scenario. The more branches you add, the bigger and more bloated the scenario gets. This translates to more programming, script writing, scripting, etc, etc, etc. So they settle for the cheap and easy more often than not.
I think a morality system where everything has a tree design to it would be best, especially if it didn't tell you if your decision was good or bad. Let the end results be the true answer. Imagine fallout NV where you didn't know what your karma was at any given time, that'd make an interesting game.
I agree with this the funny thing Atlus been using that system in their Megaten games for almost 25 years.darth gditch said:
I just want it to be more refined in more games. like Good and Evil is based off things of the "Heart". While Law and Chaos are based off Societal norms like choosing join a group of thieves or reporting their activities.
I'm going to join the "Dragon Age did it good" crowd over there.
None of them is really good, none of them is really bad. It's the consequence you have to live with not +9 Renegade points (I'm looking at -that other- BioWare game)
Kind of the same was done in Alpha Protocol. There are only relationship points (you have to give some measure to the unmearusable somehow) with every character. In one mission, you have to infiltrate a CIA outpost (of course the good guys, what else). Mina Tang says that there should be no casualties since they are A) just doing their job and B) are also tracking the bad guy. Now you can either follow her orders and only stun the enemies or render them unconscious and she likes you more and you get a bonus because she likes you and you get a bonus for not killing any CIA agents and maybe another sneaking related bonus for not being spotted.
Or you can storm the place machinegun wielding and grenade throwing and kill everything that moves as in the most loud way as possible. If you do that, mina does not like you a bit. But you get a bonus because she hates you and another bonus for killing everyone and maybe a third bonus for having taken the loud way the #th time.
Now you have to chose, do you want to have the +10% faster reloading (kill everyone) and another +10% overall dmg (Mina hates you) or the +10% sneaking (no one killed) and +10% hp bonus (Mina likes you)?
Again, only consequences. Storming the place might be ruthless, but they are shooting you on sight and you're being wrongly accused of being rogue. So in their eyes you're an evil, evil bad guy. They're after your life afterall, so it's only self-defense. And that information is curcial and they don't see the bigger picture.
So in conclusion: Morality bar, boo! Consequences, yay!
Kill all the Werewolfs? Or kill the racist Elves that turned them into Werewolfs in the first place? Or transform them back, but thus deny the Elves their revenge on the Humans?
Kind of the same was done in Alpha Protocol. There are only relationship points (you have to give some measure to the unmearusable somehow) with every character. In one mission, you have to infiltrate a CIA outpost (of course the good guys, what else). Mina Tang says that there should be no casualties since they are A) just doing their job and B) are also tracking the bad guy. Now you can either follow her orders and only stun the enemies or render them unconscious and she likes you more and you get a bonus because she likes you and you get a bonus for not killing any CIA agents and maybe another sneaking related bonus for not being spotted.
Or you can storm the place machinegun wielding and grenade throwing and kill everything that moves as in the most loud way as possible. If you do that, mina does not like you a bit. But you get a bonus because she hates you and another bonus for killing everyone and maybe a third bonus for having taken the loud way the #th time.
Now you have to chose, do you want to have the +10% faster reloading (kill everyone) and another +10% overall dmg (Mina hates you) or the +10% sneaking (no one killed) and +10% hp bonus (Mina likes you)?
Again, only consequences. Storming the place might be ruthless, but they are shooting you on sight and you're being wrongly accused of being rogue. So in their eyes you're an evil, evil bad guy. They're after your life afterall, so it's only self-defense. And that information is curcial and they don't see the bigger picture.
So in conclusion: Morality bar, boo! Consequences, yay!
But farting and burbing on people is one of the main aspects of the game. You can't take that away!Dirty Hipsters said: